Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [CAP] NOAA Undermining International Standards?
Elysa - Is it possible we've momentarily lost track of why we set out to forge standards in the first place? The outcome you describe, in which some users adopt a new standalone system but others don't, while vendors pounce on the new system's shortcomings in an attempt to neutralize what they see as a threat to their own business models... isn't that exactly how our current patchwork of incompatible, uncoordinated systems got built? HazCollect could be a success for America... a nationwide system that adds value rather than detracting from allied governmental and commercial offerings... just the sort of national warning framework we of the Partnership for Public Warning called for a few short years ago. But a number of the folks who actually have experience and a stake in warning systems see serious problems with the way it's being deployed. Even the NOAA manager himself acknowledges a shortcoming that needs to be fixed. What I'm suggesting for the TC is nothing other than what Lee recommends and Tom endorses... that we state, forthrightly and factually, our concern about the incomplete way CAP is being implemented in HazCollect... not as opposition to the HazCollect program, but as a strong caution against deferring action on a well- known problem that risks serious ramifications. - Art PS - To those who cling to a fond faith that NOAA will eventually do the right thing if we just wait long enough, all I can do is keep asking "But what if they don't?" Wishing alone won't make it so, and Herb's most sincere intentions still don't constitute a guarantee. The harsh reality is that once HazCollect deploys there'll be less incentive for NOAA to make changes, not more. And as discussed earlier, there's more at stake here than just HazCollect's success or failure.