[Namaste-dev] Re: White paper

Michelle w5nyv at yahoo.com
Mon Jul 7 15:35:12 PDT 2008

I can't even come up with anything to say. I'm growing increasingly angry the longer I wait. This is not a good dynamic.

 -Michelle W5NYV

Potestatem obscuri lateris nescis.

----- Original Message ----
From: Bob McGwier <rwmcgwier at gmail.com>
To: Paul Williamson <kb5mu at amsat.org>; Gunther Meisse <gmouse at neo.rr.com>
Cc: namaste-dev at amsat.org
Sent: Monday, July 7, 2008 11:52:22 AM
Subject: [Namaste-dev] Re: White paper

I think he is saying there can be only one boss.  In a technical endeavor
such as we are undertaking,  it is extremely rare to find all of the
necessary knowledge and drive in one individual so we can name them king for
this exercise.  We have to have argumentative discourse to get at the right
solution.  I regularly believe I know something only to find out there was
something else I should have considered.  It is the nature of a technical

AMSAT has gotten itself into serious trouble before by following one
Rasputin,  who certainly was a genius, but had human failings.  When they
showed up, "WE" made the mistake or worse "You have failed", which was the
worst human failing of all.

If he means we need leadership which says argue and then sets a basic
course, he is right.   This group does not need yes persons.  It needs to
some set goals and have sufficient leadership to take direct aim at them.


ARRL SDR Working Group Chair, AMSAT VP Engineering.
Member: ARRL, AMSAT, AMSAT-DL, TAPR, Packrats,
"Trample the slow ....  Hurdle the dead"

-----Original Message-----
From: namaste-dev-bounces at AMSAT.Org [mailto:namaste-dev-bounces at AMSAT.Org]
On Behalf Of Paul Williamson
Sent: Monday, July 07, 2008 1:41 AM
To: Gunther Meisse
Cc: namaste-dev at AMSAT.Org
Subject: [Namaste-dev] Re: White paper

At 8:54 AM -0400 7/6/08, Gunther Meisse wrote:
>There can be only one "COOK", be it a
>human or software, or we will burn the stew, as well as being laughed out
>any big money or respect for the system.

I am not sure I know what you're saying here. Can you restate it without the
metaphor, please?

>One off the wall idea is to issue codes via the internet or other means ...

Our big selling point to the emergency services community is that we don't
rely on any fragile infrastructure, such as the internet. If we need such a
security system, we'll want to implement it ourselves via the satellite

If we think such a system is needed, somebody ought to get started on
drafting the requirements. They should probably also be drafting rules to
propose to the FCC to make it clearly legal to do so. And, they should
research the legal implications in all the other countries of interest.

>The portion which
>links the officials must be clean of "jabbering hams" during the emergency
>operations. We must remember that we are providing a service to others
>during this time of operation. Past experience with weather nets, hurricane
>nets etc reek of people calling to ask what time it is? In the Emergency
>Operations Mode, the Ham is in a "Fulfillment Role" not a talk one.

I fear that any attempt to replace operator discipline with technical
solutions is doomed to failure. Your "admission ticket" idea can work to
limit access, but it won't be very good at granting access rapidly to new
stations that may have legitimate traffic. Personally I would not be very
happy about a system that assumes by default that a licensed ham radio
operator is not to be trusted to make the decision about when to transmit.

73  -Paul
kb5mu at amsat.org
Namaste-dev mailing list
Namaste-dev at amsat.org

Namaste-dev mailing list
Namaste-dev at amsat.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://amsat.org/pipermail/namaste-dev/attachments/20080707/4651db5a/attachment.html

More information about the Namaste-dev mailing list