emergency-if — archive

[Rex Brooks <thomas.merkle@usdoj.gov>]

Thanks Tom, Understood. With what Tim has reported, I think we have a good handle on how to move forward with those initiatives that have sponsors and further into the future. I agree that this should be pushed upstairs in order to prevent an inappropriate juggernaut to get started by those who seem to be of a mind that if they say a thing often enough and loudly enough, it will become true. Cheers, Rex At 5:09 PM -0400 3/18/07, Tom Merkle wrote: >Rex, >In response to your first item: > >I have not seen any e-mails regarding submission, collaboration, or >coordination to the Infrastructure Sub-Committee (IF SC) with regards to >the EDXL-AT. As co-chair of the IF SC, I facilitated an agreed upon >agenda with an external group of DHS FEMA & USAF people about using the >"Cursor on Target" as part of the PROPOSED EDXL-AT. Since that meeting >that external group has been extremely disruptive and I do not see any >e-mails from this particular group. That alone is very troubling. > >A lot of misinformation has been promulgated concerning the use of a >small lightweight DoD component (Cursor on Target) into a larger >submission through the Infrastructure Sub Committee (IF SC) that was >tentatively called EDXL-AT. The EM TC sent out a letter to the FEMA >contractor and others responsible for spreading incomplete or inaccurate >information. This contractor has never participated in the OASIS EM TC >and doesn't speak for or represent the IF SC in any way. For some reason >that particular group has taken on the role of "uber-experts" on all >situational awareness items and have been relentless in spreading their >own views regardless of the current initiatives underway. This >interference is unacceptable and must stop. I am now prepared to >escalate this to higher levels within DHS and DoD if required. >At this time, EDXL-AT is on hold pending an official sponsor. The search >for a sponsor has been severely hindered by actions of a group bend on >moving their own agenda above all else. > >When the IF SC gets sponsorship to move forward on the AT (current name >but not officially recognized) the name WILL BE CHANGED since AT now has >way too much "promised expectations". We will adhere to all of the work >being done in the EM TC and will be fully compatible without being >duplicative. The original goal for the AT is still to be modular to the >EDXL suite. > >Regards, > >Tom Merkle > >Systems Engineering and Technical Assistance (SETA) >US Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs >National Institute of Justice > >(240) 375-1966 >Thomas.Merkle@usdoj.gov > >