Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] FW: [CAP] Unique MessageIdentifiers in CAP

[Art Botterell <acb@incident.com>]

At 10:08 AM -0500 3/23/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
>We seem to take the "vote on it and move on" rather than "address 
>the issue, which may mean a vote" approach, which as Chair concerns 
>me. It is a train wreck waiting to happen.

Allen, if there's been a lack of breadth and depth in our discussion 
of specific issues... and in some areas there has been... then that's 
something you, as Chair, need not only to decry but also to take some 
responsibility for.  I very much regret that most of the input I've 
heard from you over the past half-a-year seems to been of the "we're 
going too fast" or "that won't work" or "we're on the road to hell" 
variety.  I'm afraid that negativity has taken a toll both on the 
TC's membership and on its productivity.

Ultimately the question is "who needs to be satisfied, and what do 
they consider satisfactory?"  To my mind, the only meaningful owners 
of CAP are the folks who actually use it.  Allen, has your firm 
invested the effort, as many others have, to actually implement and 
deploy a CAP application outside its own office and in active 
connection with multiple other implementers?  If not, then I'm not 
sure why we should consider satisfying your personal opinion of what 
constitutes "addressing the issue" to be our chief goal.  (And if so, 
then why not back up your various concerns with some specific 
evidence from that specific effort so we can craft specific 
solutions?)

Our priority needs to be to field a basic standard quickly, build 
positive awareness of it in the user community, and then to pay 
attention to the folks who've actually rolled up their sleeves and 
applied it as we decide what can be refined.  Otherwise we're just 
spinning our wheels in a pool of our own anxieties.

Anyway, critiques of process and forecasts of doom aren't getting the 
job done.  It's time to start talking about what we can do next and 
how to mobilize and energize the TC to do it, not just moan about 
what we haven't done yet.

If your other responsibilities don't permit you to bring affirmative 
leadership to CAP and our other projects... or if you feel so 
strongly that you just can't bring yourself to stand behind the TC's 
decisions... then maybe you ought to consider accepting our thanks 
for a year of hard work and passing the Chair to someone who can 
summon a more constructive attitude.

- Art

PS - On the very first slide in the first emergency management class 
I ever took there appeared this quote attributed to a Roman general 
named Paulus:  "If, therefore, anyone thinks himself qualified to 
give advice respecting the war which I am to conduct-- let him not 
refuse his assistance to the State, but let him come with me into 
Macedonia... but if he thinks this is too much trouble, and prefers 
the repose of a city life to the toils of war, let him not on land 
assume the office of a pilot."


At 10:08 AM -0500 3/23/04, R. Allen Wyke wrote:
>On Mar 3, 2004, at 10:39 AM, Rex Brooks wrote:
>
>>In other words, the more of the discussion we can have here, the 
>>less we need to discuss in the meeting.
>
>I completely agree with this. Something we have not done very well 
>is debate and discuss topics via the list. Yes, we all have day jobs 
>that keep us busy, but at the same time it is clear that when we are 
>the point of voting, a lot of people either do not fully understand 
>the issues, or the people that understand have not fully discussed 
>them. We seem to take the "vote on it and move on" rather than 
>"address the issue, which may mean a vote" approach, which as Chair 
>concerns me. It is a train wreck waiting to happen. That being said, 
>consider this nothing more than some stimulation to discuss topics 
>in more detail and at greater lengths on the list.
>
>>My own take on these is that they fall within the implementation 
>>guide/note, not as part of the spec. Or perhaps, these are 
>>candidates for the FAQ. I don't personally think that these are 
>>candidates for the the factsheet.
>
>I agree these are not fact sheet items, but I do not agree they are 
>implementation guide/note items. This is a normative topic that 
>should be discussed in the spec - at least better than it is today. 
>The spec MUST define the hard requirements, and the implementation 
>guide should ONLY be there to support how those hard requirements 
>are implemented. It should NOT start to define its own requirements 
>(ie: the spec should not say to be unique and imp guide tells how to 
>be unique, but rather the spec should define how to be unique and 
>the imp guide describe how to build that uniqueness into an 
>implementation)
>
>>You are correct though, IMHO, that we do have more immediately 
>>important issues to wrestle with, including the ICS 201, to which 
>>some DHS developments pertain, such as being included in the 
>>National Incident Management System, NIMS. I would, in that 
>>connection, appreciate any news that can be forwarded or presented 
>>to us.
>
>I somewhat disagree with this comment. That specifically we have 
>"more immediately important issues." Our most important issue is to 
>ensure CAP is done right, is successful, and is adopted by not just 
>government projects, but also commercial applications that target 
>all sectors that deal with crisis. This is why the TC was started. 
>Trying to take on another work, while we are still getting our sea 
>legs with CAP, is a huge no-no. They right books about this (read 
>Crossing the Chasm when you have a chance).
>
>>I am personally looking at developing a voice-controlled 
>>application of that form within a web services context, but it is 
>>definitely an overlap issue for WML/HTML, and might very well be 
>>combined with closed circuit video or Simultaneously Multimedia 
>>Integration Language, SMIL, apps. Of course, it's important to 
>>focus on what can be achieved in the short term, in terms of 
>>specification work we can add for the simplest technologies first, 
>>if our work is even needed in those areas, or what. It's the OR 
>>WHAT that concerns me, so I think we should at least start the 
>>discussion on IF SC next week as well.
>
>Now this is what I agree with. I too have a million other things I 
>want or would rather the group to be working on, but right now we 
>need to ensure CAP is best position for success, and as such, while 
>it is great to have offline discussions on other topics, we must 
>focus on it.
>
>--
>R. Allen Wyke
>Chair, OASIS Emergency Management TC
>emergency-tc@earthlink.net
>
>
>To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the 
>roster of the OASIS TC), go to 
>http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php.