[aprssig] Information organization

[Scott Howard]

On Thu, Feb 17, 2022 at 3:25 PM Lynn W Deffenbaugh (Mr) <KJ4ERJ at arrl.net>
wrote:
>
> Scott,
>
> I looked at what you've done so far and it certainly doesn't look like an
"inventory" or a set of "hyperlink(s) to all the relevant pages", but
instead the page describes itself as:

I want to thank Lynn for his comments, they were helpful in figuring out
where the miscommunication was happening since I actually completely agree
with what both Lynn and Steve are saying, and thought what I was doing was
in support of their vision.

There's actually much agreement and excitement on the list, I don't want to
detract from it or give off the impression that I'm working against
anything! I am actually supportive of the new organization that is forming
and am willing to help that organization wherever I can be useful. I think
there may just be a misunderstanding of goals and actions, which I think is
summarized in this sentence

> "The problem is when it is done publicly, and especially in a public
collaboration."

To me, doing it in public as a public collaboration was the *solution* to
the problem, but I now see that others see it as *the* problem. The goal is
not to be an authority, not to claim any authority, not hold any
discussions, nor make any decisions. Nothing will be decided on github
(because there are no discussions to be had because it is not an authority
nor a place to hold discussions), and it is being done in a place where it
can be edited and commented on, added to, corrected, etc. The goal is to
articulate a high level model for how to even think about how all of APRS
connects to each other (thus the use of the OSI model, not to be in the
weeds with details but to put up the scaffolding by which we can see all of
APRS at once.) It's a high level conceptual framework to help organize
information. I did put some details in there, I probably should move
details in to another document so that people don't think its trying to be
a protocol document.

I really don't want this to cause any of the issues Steve pointed out, I
put a strong disclaimer at the top of it saying that it is not a
specification, it is almost guaranteed to be factually incorrect, and that
it is out of date. That said, I still think it's a worthwhile exercise to
try to start thinking about the high-level conceptual framework in which
APRS exists. I think some on this list think my goal is the details, but my
goal is actually thinking high level (and the details only matter where
they interfere with the high level framework).

I understand where Steve is coming from and also want to avoid chaos, so I
just want to make it clear to everyone that this is not a specification nor
competing protocol. There is no protocol here. I tried to label the things
that never were formally approved as "proposed," but I am very likely wrong
about both technical things and what has been approved. That's why I am
doing it publicly and in a public collaboration. I don't mind being wrong,
I welcome criticism, there is much to learn! I'm looking forward to what
the community does next.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.tapr.org/pipermail/aprssig_lists.tapr.org/attachments/20220217/112a6c23/attachment.html>