[aprssig] IGate design theory

[Steve Dimse]

> On Dec 4, 2016, at 9:14 AM, Jim Alles <kb3tbx at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
> We have clearly determined that we absolutely need to have an IGate author's design specification document...
> 
I would not agree to that. IMO we have demonstrated there is a disagreement in some details about the way IGates would best be implemented. If you think there needs to be a document then a whole host of issues come into question. Whose opinions matter? Everyone on the SIG? An invite-only group? Who gets to invite? How do you plan to resolve disagreements? Are you going to decide? Me? Bob? Pete? Perhaps by vote? If so who gets to vote? How do you intend to resolve disagreements? Does every alternate opinion get into the document? How much time is permitted for each point top be discussed? If some stakeholder's life-event prevents their involvement for a period of time do we wait? If a document is released how do you enforce compliance? Would you ban all UI-View clients because that author died and couldn't implement new riles? And there are many more non-trivial admin problems...

These aren't theoretical questions, we have dealt with them before. As the few of us involved in the first APRS spec remember, resolving some things required considerable effort and some issues were never resolved. You need a core of technical people and a core of admin people. It is not as easy as writing a few emails!

> if we expect to realize any kind of consistency using the APRS for messaging while traveling outside of our local area

We have had considerable consistency doing this for 15 years.

Steve K4HG