[aprssig] Information organization

[Bob Poortinga]

"There is nothing more difficult to take in hand, more perilous to conduct,
or more uncertain in its success, than to take the lead in the introduction
of a new order of things."

"No good deed goes unpunished."

Just a few of my own thoughts:

1) Why create a new 501(c) entity when a new APRS committee could be
organized under TAPR's umbrella?

2) "Lead or get out of the way." Don't be critical of other people's
efforts unless you're willing to take the lead.

3) The APRS "old timers" have valuable insight and experience into why
things are the way that they are. Much of this knowledge has never been
properly documented and one would have to skim decades of the APRSlist
archives to find it. It needs to be properly codified.

4) Many members of our community, including newcomers, bring skills and
knowledge that should be welcomed and encouraged when it is offered.

4) Now that Bob is gone, we have been unshackled to update and improve
APRS. Lets not blow it. Everyone should be pulling in the same direction.
However, we do indeed need to focus on organization and leadership at this
critical point.

R,
Bob W9IZ



On Thu, Feb 17, 2022, 3:00 PM Steve Dimse <steve at dimse.com> wrote:

>
>
> > On Feb 17, 2022, at 1:54 PM, Scott Howard <showard at nd.edu> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 1:25 PM Steve Dimse <steve at dimse.com> wrote:
> > >
> > > If you want to prepare for that time when we do start moving forward
> and you can offer your services to the APRS group I think that is great,
> but I think it is not yet time for public protocol documentation.
> > >
> >
> > Maybe I wasn't clear, but this isn't about making any type of protocol
> document nor proposals on how to change the protocol.
>
> But just in glancing over it I see two things that are factually
> incorrect, and at least two that were never correctly settled and deserve
> an in-depth discussion among stakeholders. Now is not the time to start
> proofreading, merging, and discussing the myriad issues in APRS.
>
> If you have no interest in being involved in the formation of a guiding
> group, that is fine, and if you want to spend your time gathering stuff
> together, also fine, but to put something out in public now will divide
> effort at a key time, and worse leave things open to cries of "We settled
> this on github months ago."
>
> How the gather/merge happens will be up to the organizing group, but my
> advise is to do it similar to the way we did the spec in the APRS WG, in
> very small complete chunks. Maybe this week (or three) we'd talk about
> source address encoding. First we would gather together all the info, read
> it, discuss any issues that had occurred in the past or we foresaw, Ian
> would write a first draft, and we would iterate our way through it until we
> were satisfied. It is slow, but it has to be, because we all have real
> lives. We found if one person rushed ahead it the whole process was rushed
> and mistakes were made.
>
> > It is just an initial effort of trying to figure out what is even out
> there.
>
> But much of what is out there is wrong. Moving it over to a new place when
> everyone can't proof and discuss it compounds the problem.
>
> Steve K4HG
> _______________________________________________
> aprssig mailing list
> aprssig at lists.tapr.org
> http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig_lists.tapr.org
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20220217/2ba3e0df/attachment.html>