<html><head></head><body><div class="ydp7752ef67yahoo-style-wrap" style="font-family:Helvetica Neue, Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;"><div></div>
<div dir="ltr" data-setdir="false">So who wants to send Stan Horzepa an email and request that he call a meeting of the APRSWG?<br></div><div><br></div>
</div><div id="ydp37a9a2abyahoo_quoted_5135336059" class="ydp37a9a2abyahoo_quoted">
<div style="font-family:'Helvetica Neue', Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif;font-size:13px;color:#26282a;">
<div>
On Monday, February 14, 2022, 02:50:00 PM EST, Heikki Hannikainen <hessu@hes.iki.fi> wrote:
</div>
<div><br></div>
<div><br></div>
<div><div dir="ltr">On Mon, 14 Feb 2022, Georg Lukas wrote:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> It looks like the APRSWG actually has a set of formal rules, and that<br clear="none">> new members can be accepted into it:<br clear="none">><br clear="none">> <a shape="rect" href="http://www.ui-view.net/files/APRSWG_charter.pdf" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://www.ui-view.net/files/APRSWG_charter.pdf</a><br clear="none">><br clear="none">> So it's probably possible to vote new members into the WG and retain it<br clear="none">> as the owner of the APRS spec.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">Stan Horzepa, WA1LOU, who was the secretary, is still active in the TAPR <br clear="none">things. I guess he might still be the secretary. I suppose that in any <br clear="none">case the APRSWG would have to gather up and have a meeting, and do one of <br clear="none">the following:<br clear="none"><br clear="none">1. Vote new members in, activate the WG again, and do the APRS spec work <br clear="none">within the WG (contributions from outside could still be taken in)<br clear="none"><br clear="none">2. Just assign the copyright of the document to a new group which then <br clear="none">takes care of it<br clear="none"><br clear="none">3. Relicense the document under a suitable Open Source license, such as <br clear="none">CC BY-SA, so that other people outside the APRSWG, within a new APRS <br clear="none">organisation or outside of it, can edit and republish the document.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">I'd personally hope for 3, as it would have the least administrative <br clear="none">overhead, and the most flexibility, as new contributions could be simply <br clear="none">taken in on github (with a little review), in a parallel and distribution <br clear="none">fashion. It'd be the most open and least restrictive path, and reduce the <br clear="none">risk of having this sort of discussion again.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">> As expected, the original text is all there, but most of the markup is<br clear="none">> misguided and will require significant manual cleanup efforts.<br clear="none"><br clear="none">That's already a great starting point! It's already quite readable, and <br clear="none">it would be relatively straightforward, although a little monotonic and <br clear="none">time-consuming, to fix it up from there.<br clear="none"><br clear="none"> - Hessu<div class="ydp37a9a2abyqt3368363132" id="ydp37a9a2abyqtfd07987"><br clear="none"><br clear="none"><br clear="none">_______________________________________________<br clear="none">aprssig mailing list<br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="mailto:aprssig@lists.tapr.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">aprssig@lists.tapr.org</a><br clear="none"><a shape="rect" href="http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig_lists.tapr.org" rel="nofollow" target="_blank">http://lists.tapr.org/mailman/listinfo/aprssig_lists.tapr.org</a><br clear="none"></div></div></div>
</div>
</div></body></html>