[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]
Subject: Re: [emergency] Re: [emergency-comment] PPW letter re CAP
On Wed, 2003-10-08 at 23:24, Art Botterell wrote: > We should also bear in mind that several hundred people and > organizations put their trust in OASIS when they contributed their > collective work of the prior two years to this process. Certainly we > can choose to respond only to our own interests and concerns, but I > think we're better than that. So, you are saying the TC has not been democratic in our process? > >What Rex is referring to is the simply fact that media/broadcast is > >represented only by 1 member of 1 OASIS membership organization, while > >other areas have a larger (in terms of bodies, which is what ultimately > >drives a democratic process like OASIS) level of commitment. > > If we all vote merely on our organizational self-interest then your > logic holds... but I don't think that's how most of us are > approaching this. In a serious discussion, issues need to be > evaluated on their merit before we start counting votes. It is true that people should be voting on what they believe, which should be influenced by experience, the organization/perspective they represent, etc. Are you saying that people have previously voted irresponsibly, because that is what you are implying. That everyone here has voted on "our organizational self-interest." > >If you are comparing medai to non-media standards and technologies, then > >I disagree. If this were the case, then we would not have any demos or > >products able to release support for CAP day 1 of it being official. > > Not sure I follow your logic here. That folks have done such demos > as the state of the current specification allows doesn't mean that > there wouldn't be a wider swath of demos from more early adopters if > the standard met more potential users' needs. You had said "And the media standards and technologies involved are no more uncertain than in any other area." I was making the statement, as it applies to CAP, that if you are implying that non-media standards and technologies are not ready to handle XML-based alerts as the spec is written today that I disagreed. We have shown that they are in our demos and relative ease to support the format. True, the transport is a different issue - which is why we have a group now focused on that. > >There is always a "we have to hit it" deadline - anyone in this space > >knows this. If broadcast media is so special that its one and only ship > >is about to sail, then what is driving that? > > Not my area of expertise, really... you might want to query the > NDSAmerica folks or PPW for real details... but off the top of my > head I'd suggest that the FCC's mandatory schedule for DTV conversion > and the relatively long manufacturing leadtimes for consumer devices > might have something to do with it. As a member organization, I would love to see PPW have a person with that kind of expertise join the TC. FCC schedules, leadtimes for consumer devices, inability to do two-way communication, etc. all need substantive details. Not to digress, but what you referred to here, I assume, are the next generation TVs. I actually do have some experience here - have worked with some of the early interactive, or enhanced, TV companies. I can say they do have 2 way communication - its how Tivo today helps "recommend" things to you. I was looking at this 3 or 4 years ago and the back channel, at the time, was a modem that dialed back in, but they were already working on using cable to do this. They were all over video on demand and about a billion other things. Can't speak for all types, but in this case I am sure we would quickly find TVs of tomorrow will have real-time, high bandwidth, 2-way communication. > >I think the point here is not that anyone disagrees that broadcast media > >should not be addressed, which is something we talked about and I > >thought agreed to at the 7/15 meeting. But rather a) now is not the > >time, b) including IN CAP (vs as an official or unofficial note or > >recommendation) may not be the right way to do it, and c) how they > >propose addressing it is not the best way (our IF SC can help guide us > >here). > > I understand your position, but I have to disagree because: a) > there's good reason to believe that this may be the only time we can > do it without forcing an unnecessary fork in the standard... and > there's no good reason we CAN'T do it now if we just allow ourselves > to; No good reason, or no good reason that impacts you? > b) a number of companies have said that if it's not explicitly > set forth in the standard, it doesn't help them ensure > interoperability with other folks' products; I assume you are referring to broadcast media companies, correct? > and, c) which way is the > best is a question that ought be decided by the committee after open > and thoughtful consideration by the committee, not preempted by folks > taking inflexible positions from the start. Help me understand how we did not do this on 7/15? It seems to be your inflexibility as to accomplishing the very same thing, but another way that is the root of this issue. > - Art > > > To unsubscribe from this mailing list (and be removed from the roster of the OASIS TC), go to http://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/emergency/members/leave_workgroup.php. -- R. Allen Wyke Chair, Emergency Management TC emtc@nc.rr.com http://www.oasis-open.org/committees/emergency
[Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]