[aprssig] A Proposal for the Continuation of APRS

[Steve Dimse]

Am I the only one that did not see this? It is not on either of the two ways I get email from the sig, including in junk mail folders. It is on the TAPR web archive of the sig though. I want to be sure everyone has seen it

http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/2022-February/049227.html

I support this proposal. I do think it is important there be a formal aspect to APRS moving forward. Bob was the authority in APRS and especially the protocol, and if nothing fills that void I can see chaos in APRS' future.

What we have seen here so far are a lot of interesting ideas. The two I see that have some chance of being carried out in the short term are Hessu's plan to github tocalls, and KD9PDP's proposal to handle a rewrite. I've commented on the former already. If a group forms he will fold it into that.

As to KD9PDP's proposal, someone needs to do it, and no one else is stepping forward. The 1.1 errata were well vetted. As Scott points out, 1.2 is a completely different thing, and I do not think anything from there should be added to a definitive document without community discussion and approval. 

But that brings up the big issue, how is such a discussion and approval to be accomplished? That is why I think a formal, open membership group is so important. Some have complained about it being US centric. I do not care what country it is based in, if someone else wants to organize it based in another county great, step forward so we can discuss. Otherwise, let it get organized where those willing to put in the work are located.

Steve K4HG