[aprssig] Information organization

[steve at dimse.com]

> On Feb 17, 2022, at 3:55 PM, Charles Gallo <charlie at thegallos.com> wrote:
> 
> And the arguing about it, instead of just correcting it, and submitting a pull request is what will drive people away from the group, and from participating, leading to the death of APRS

We have a once in thirty year chance to organize APRS in a sustainable manner. I say it is worth a few months delay in creating new documents. As to arguing, we need to settle things and at least try to act as a group instead of thousands of individuals.
> 
> What prevents someone from creating "NotQuiteAPRS", putting it out there, and saying WE are going to run this on 144.390?  It could be partly, or even mostly compatible, or have compatibility as a legacy mode

Same thing that as prevented it for the last 30 years, almost nothing. OpenTrak was one such thing, but it never got popular and Scott got busy with other things, but as we've heard it may rise again. APRS is an established mode with a place on the bandplan, and if someone starts something new on 144.39 that interferes with APRS transmissions that probably would violate FCC rules in the US. But such weak rules about QRM and best amateur practice are all that has prevented it all along.

But the bigger danger lies not organizing in a unified manner. If there isn't some way to build a consensus, and some way to say what is allowed and what isn't everyone can do whatever they want, and APRS will splinter. Bob sort of did that, but he is gone. That is why we need an organization now.

Steve K4HG