[aprssig] A Proposal for the Continuation of APRS

[Scott Howard]

On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 6:15 PM Steve Dimse <steve at dimse.com> wrote:
>
> 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.

I missed that, thanks for pointing it out. I think it's great that so many
people are interested in moving things forward! However, I don't know if we
need a formal 501c3. That structure is great for fundraising - but for most
of the activities people are proposing, there isn't too much of a need for
fundraising. If Jeff W4JEW and his team have things that they need funds
for, then I'm all for it (and would probably donate!) If it's small scale
stuff (<$10k), a Patreon/GoFundMe/Venmo/PayPal would probably suffice.

I disagree that the lack of a formal authority would lead to chaos. There's
the famous essay "The Cathedral and the Bazaar" by Eric Raymond that
describes this dichotomy as it exists in technology development. When it
comes to hobby activity, the bazaar (grassroots/bottom-up) approach tends
to be more successful long term. But APRS also has a commercial aspect, and
there I would actually argue that there is a formal authority: the major
software and hardware vendors. If aprs.fi, aprsdirect, YAAC, aprsdroid,
direwolf (among many other excellent projects!) suddenly accept some APRS
data extension, then downstream hardware developers will use it (which is
reality: those software projects accept telemetry formats that are not
formally in the spec, I believe). Regardless of whatever a formal authority
says, if Kenwood or Yaesu add some feature, the whole community will likely
adopt it. If some open-source/open-hardware project is successful and
develops/uses a feature (qrplabs, Mobilinkd, the uSDX project among many
other companies/projects that I think are amazing), the major manufacturers
will add the feature or risk losing market share (and if we adopt an open
source approach, there would be no IP barriers).

Something I see coming in the next decade, with the increase in SDR-based
radios, is that the AFSK hard-limit might be relaxing. Upgrading hardware
to new modes will be as simple as a software download (instead of having to
buy a whole new rig). In that case, multiple APRS modes can coexist *on the
same hardware, simultaneously.* This is another reason why I think the
future of APRS is in the "bazaar" instead of the "cathedral." Adding to
that, as Hessu pointed out, there's tremendous growth in Asia that (as far
as I know) is not represented on this list - so any centralized voice that
does not include them won't have much authority.

My conclusion is that a combination of technical, global, and economic
factors are pointing towards a development structure closer to Linux than
Windows.

-Scott

On Sun, Feb 13, 2022 at 6:15 PM Steve Dimse <steve at dimse.com> wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig_lists.tapr.org
>


-- 


*Scott Howard, PhD*
*Associate Professor*
Department of Electrical Engineering
College of Engineering Bioengineering Program
University of Notre Dame
http://ee.nd.edu

574-631-2570 (direct)
574-631-4393 (fax)

https://howardphotonics.nd.edu
Follow me on Twitter @HowardPhotonics <https://twitter.com/HowardPhotonics>

262 Fitzpatrick Hall
Notre Dame, IN 46556
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20220214/85cdf07e/attachment.html>