OASIS Emergency Management TC

  • 1.  CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues: Inclusion of FEMARequirements doc in Appendix

    Posted 02-16-2009 14:57
    Hi Everyone,
    
    I had hoped to see arguments from both sides of the issue of 
    including the FEMA IPAWS CAP Profile Requirements document in 
    Appendix B of the CAP IPAWS Profile submitted to the TC last week 
    before I explain my position, but I also need to call attention to 
    some other parts of the document that I said I would as an ACTION in 
    our last CAP Profiles SC meeting, and I want to cover the main issue 
    in contention first. So I will be sending another message after this.
    
    I must also say that I took this work on as a subcontractor to OASIS 
    in order to facilitate the process, and ONLY to facilitate the 
    process. I have not been given any instructions on how the profile 
    should be constructed nor has any request been received on any issue 
    of substance from FEMA IPAWS PMO representatives except in the open 
    meetings of the SC. The request to include this material was made 
    openly and I supported it because I think the TC needs to decide the 
    issue.
    
    One reason I wanted to see an argument in favor of including this 
    material is that I don't have a strong opinion in favor or opposed.
    
    As an implementer, I would prefer to have some of the material in the 
    specification for ready reference without the necessity of 
    downloading another document for that purpose. However, I don't think 
    that is a strong enough argument on its own for inclusion.
    
    As a participant in the writing of the specification, I would prefer 
    that it be left out because I think it contains far too much material 
    that is not especially germane to the profile, such as the last 
    section on EAS Technical Specifications aimed at manufacturers of EAS 
    devices.
    
    So, I will be content to follow the wishes of the TC in this.
    
    One last thought: we usually operate on the basis that when there are 
    issues, the advocates must make their own arguments openly. If a 
    position is not represented and there has been sufficient advance 
    notice concerning a meeting to resolve this issue, the position 
    represented is the only one considered, and prevails on that basis, 
    so silence implies consent.
    
    Cheers,
    Rex
    
    
    -- 
    Rex Brooks
    President, CEO
    Starbourne Communications Design
    GeoAddress: 1361-A Addison
    Berkeley, CA 94702
    Tel: 510-898-0670
    


  • 2.  Re: [emergency] CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues

    Posted 02-17-2009 18:51
    Friends -
    
    In the course of today's Emergency Management TC meeting a DHS representative expressed the opinion that OASIS is under a contractual obligations to expedite the processing of the IPAWS profile over and above the OASIS TC Process.  As we've been unable to obtain a copy of that contract, and considering that the numerous OASIS staff who were taking an active part in our meeting didn't appear to contradict that claim, I guess we have to assume that it's true.
    
    Therefore I'm forced, reluctantly, to the conclusion that this process is seriously compromised by conflicts of interest.  I have asked that my name be removed from the list of editors of the IPAWS draft and I will be considering whether renewing my agency's OASIS membership would be in the best interests of the people of Contra Costa County.
    
    - Art
    
    
    Art Botterell, Manager
    Community Warning System
    Contra Costa County Office of the Sheriff
    50 Glacier Drive
    Martinez, California 94553
    (925) 313-9603
    fax (925) 646-1120
    
    


  • 3.  RE: [emergency] CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues

    Posted 02-17-2009 19:01
    Art,
    
    I am so sorry that I was unable to attend today's meeting. I am hoping
    that time will allow so that I can again be actively involved in EM
    standards development in the very near future. 
    
    If you can forgive my having to observe this issue unfold from some
    distance, I would like clarification on exactly how a consortium of
    volunteers can be obligated contractually to any entity.
    
    Any insights you or anyone else can provide is appreciated.
    
    Patti
    
    Patti Iles Aymond, PhD 
    Senior Scientist, Research & Development 
    Innovative Emergency Management, Inc. (IEM)
    Managing Risk in a Complex World
    
    8550 United Plaza Blvd.   Suite 501 
    Baton Rouge, LA 70809 
    (225) 526-8844 (phone) 
    (225) 952-8122 (fax) 
    
    


  • 4.  RE: [emergency] CAP-IPAWS Profile Specification Issues

    Posted 02-17-2009 19:18
    That's a great question, Patti.  Obviously I was shocked to hear that claim made so bluntly.  However, since neither OASIS staff nor DHS representatives in the TC have seen their way clear to share that contract, and since the TC decided not to wait to see it via a FOIA request, I can't really answer it.
    
    The complications, of course, are that the majority of TC members are themselves under DHS contracts and can't reasonably be expected to oppose their employer's vigorously expressed policy (in short, they're not necessarily "volunteers" in the sense you and I might use the term)... and that OASIS staff began today to take an active role in TC deliberations, not just answering procedural questions, but also expressing some fairly substantive opinions, which given their (alleged) contractual obligation again calls the notion of "a consortium of volunteers" into question, at least in my eyes.
    
    - Art
    
    >>> "Aymond, Patti"