OASIS Emergency Management TC

 View Only

[emergency] Re: [CAP] NOAA Undermining International Standards?

  • 1.  [emergency] Re: [CAP] NOAA Undermining International Standards?

    Posted 06-02-2006 21:39
     MHonArc v2.5.0b2 -->
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    
    

    emergency message

    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]


    Subject: [emergency] Re: [CAP] NOAA Undermining International Standards?


    Since I my personal experience doesn't validate the predictable 
    effects, although that may in fact be the practical outcome, I can't 
    be part of the we that doesn't "stand for NOAA ..." especially since 
    I am willing to extend the benefit of the doubt based on what Herb 
    said on the record.
    
    I don't think it serves our purposes to dig our heels in on what is, 
    after all, an optional feature at this point. However, showing a 
    willingness to bring the press in if intentions don't match results 
    is certainly an option I would keep handy.
    
    Also, it sounded to me like a negative OAT report in regard to 
    non-implementation of "instructions" was certainly in order, also for 
    the record.
    
    Regards,
    Rex
    
    
    At 10:07 AM -0700 6/2/06, Art Botterell wrote:
    >Friends -
    >
    >Apparently I've failed to sensitize NOAA to the impact of their 
    >choices beyond their own organizational and national borders.  Much 
    >more is as stake here than just "visibility."
    >
    >On Jun 2, 2006, at 6/2/06 7:33 AM, Herbert White wrote:
    >>The planned HazCollect Initial Operating Capability (IOC) is just 
    >>the first step in the process.  NOAA's intent is to fully support 
    >>the CAP "Instruction" element.
    >
    >The problem is that these terms... "operational acceptance test" and 
    >"initial operating capacity"... mean precisely what they say.  The 
    >"OAT" isn't just some mid-point correction in an ongoing development 
    >process.  It marks the acceptance of an operational product.  It is, 
    >for all intents and purposes, a functional nationwide rollout of an 
    >"operating capacity" that even Herb admits is incomplete.
    >
    >For most of a year now I've been asking Herb and others to specify 
    >when those flaws would be fixed, if not prior to the initial 
    >rollout.  He's been unable to do so, and rightly so, because there's 
    >no guarantee he'll ever get the funds to make changes once an 
    >"initial operating capacity" is accepted.  (I think we all know that 
    >there's nothing as permanent in government as a "temporary" 
    >structure.)  So... with all respect to Herb personally... I think we 
    >need to recognize that such general statements of intent are 
    >well-meaning but ultimately empty, and to focus on what's actually 
    >about to be deployed.
    >
    >What will be some of the predictable effects if HazCollect is 
    >deployed and accepted in its current form?
    >
    >1) Existing and developing providers of warning and emergency 
    >information systems will be shut out of the system for lack of an 
    >open interface in the foreseeable future.
    >
    >2) Emergency managers will be pressured to install the DMIS toolkit 
    >on their already cluttered desktops as the only way to get access to 
    >NWS warning assets.
    >
    >3) The market for non-NWS warning systems and products will be 
    >chilled, since nobody with a full CAP implementation will be able to 
    >guarantee compatibility with HazCollect.
    >
    >4) Many system developers in the U.S. and abroad will feel pressure 
    >to "dumb down" their CAP implementations to match the HazCollect 
    >model rather than try to support both.
    >
    >5) Ironically, other system developers (as we've seen in this 
    >discussion) will take NOAA's intransigence and go-it-alone approach 
    >as a reason not to bother implementing standards at all.
    >
    >6) Ultimately, the credibility of the standards process will be 
    >eroded by the example of a huge U.S. federal agency overriding the 
    >standard for their own internal convenience.
    >
    >Let's be clear here... it would be entirely possible for NOAA to 
    >accommodate its internal back-compatibility issues internally, 
    >without projecting them out to the user interface.  And both NOAA 
    >and Battelle have had plenty of time to make the necessary changes, 
    >during a development schedule that's already slipped numerous 
    >deadlines and waived a number of original specifications.
    >
    >The only reason these problems persist is that NOAA and Battelle 
    >have chosen not to fix them.  We must not stand for NOAA putting a 
    >flawed HazCollect "initial operating capacity" online until they are.
    >
    >- Art
    >
    >
    >
    >---------------------------------------------------------------------
    >To unsubscribe from this mail list, you must leave the OASIS TC that
    >generates this mail.  You may a link to this group and all your TCs in OASIS
    >at:
    >https://www.oasis-open.org/apps/org/workgroup/portal/my_workgroups.php
    
    
    -- 
    Rex Brooks
    President, CEO
    Starbourne Communications Design
    GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
    Berkeley, CA 94702
    Tel: 510-849-2309
    


    [Date Prev] | [Thread Prev] | [Thread Next] | [Date Next] -- [Date Index] | [Thread Index] | [List Home]