[HamWAN PSDR] [Netops] Oregon and Washington HamWAN

[Nigel Vander Houwen]

Scott,

To start, thank you for the feedback. I’ll see if I can form some responses to your notes below. Please note that for now these are my opinions and perspectives. I am on the board, and I am a long time network admin for the Puget Sound network, but much of this covers topics that haven’t really been formalized.

With regards to Oregon+Washington, the Puget Sound team is stretched thin. We’ve got a number of new sites and growth opportunities in our region, and we’re having to pretty severely prioritize work based on very limited crew availability, particularly climbers. I don’t think we’re in a good position to “take charge” of getting Oregon deployed too. We’re more than happy to coordinate work for RF links, and provide as much technical support as we can, but I’m going to venture to say that local folks are going to need to get the boots on the ground work done.

Along these lines, HamWAN as an organization has always been set up that it *shouldn’t* be reliant on us. HamWAN is a standard that anyone can go and build. You noted some of these sister networks before. Tampa, Memphis, (2x) BC, Spokane, are all set up by other folks who were interested. Depending on the situation, they have coordinated with us more or less. “HamWAN Oregon” would be the same, if we can link via RF, that’s fantastic, but that isn’t a requirement for getting a local instance going down there.

With regards to documentation, you are correct, it is lacking, and it’s a known issue. We’ve had some folks volunteer to help, but you are also more than welcome to help too. We’ve recently improved some of the tooling to make editing the documentation easier (thanks Tom). If you are, please let us know.

Aligned with both the “sister networks” and “documentation” topics, HamWAN.org <http://hamwan.org/> isn’t always the clearest as to what represents the “standard” that applies to everyone, and what is just of interest/specific to the Puget Sound network, since it started here, and Puget Sound is the flagship. Again, it’s been a known shortfall, waiting for some improvement.

As chairman of the board, I often encourage representatives from our sister networks to run for the board as our yearly elections come around. Sometimes we get some, and sometimes we don’t. People everywhere are busy, and most of the folks running these networks aren’t retired and have their regular jobs, families, and other drains on their time in addition to the hobby of HamWAN. I look forward to getting a representative from the Oregon sister network in the not too distant future.

So, the short answer here, and again this is my opinion, is that HamWAN is structured so that local teams can build their own, and the common standard allows for clients to move from place to place, and interoperation to be easy. Oregon will need a local team to head the operations down there, and the Puget Sound folks will be pleased to work with them to help get things off the ground.

Thanks,
Nigel

> On Oct 29, 2018, at 18:31, Scott J. Burrows <sburrows97211 at comcast.net> wrote:
> 
> Hello, 
>  
> I'm curious, do the PSDR folks in Seattle have a plan for integrating both Oregon and Washington into their existing HamWAN network?   I have talked to folks within Washington State about their costing estimates and deployment strategies of their HamWAN initiative.  The proposed effort discussed deploying HamWAN technology both for the Northern and Southern routes of the state.  Earlier this month, the Clark County ARES/RACES group submitted a "2019 Grant Request Proposal" to the Clark Regional Emergency Service Agency to build out a prototype client station at the county EOC.  Also, the folks in Oregon have secured a large grant (possibly $30,000 dollar) for HamWAN and will be discussing HamWAN deployments this year.  They are organizing teams for fund raising, network administration, site installation, mentorship, and strategic planning.
>  
> Much of the talk in the IRC group has been about technical suggestions for minor technical problems.  I have not encountered any serious discussions about large implementation efforts in expanding the HamWAN network, although perhaps that is occurring via another method.  The Memphis, Tampa Bay, and British Columbia seem to be small regional implementations in distant states/provinces.  However, I have not seen any serious discussions about statewide strategic and tactical implementations of HamWAN (i.e. Washington and Oregon). 
>  
> In my experience, technology folks get fixated on the nuts-and-bolts of the network technology and forget about strategic leadership, management, and formal documentation.  Much of the PSDR website has not been updated in years.  I regularly hear comments at digital meetings where folks are interested in HamWAN, but are waiting for more specific information.  This makes large scale deployments extremely difficult if you have to email the HamWAN Network Operations folks every day, assuming they have time to respond. 
>  
> I understand that the HamWAN folks in Seattle are busy with day jobs and unable to respond immediately to all questions.  However, if the PSDR leadership team was to reach out to the larger audience, I am sure they will find many talented folks to help with most aspect of HamWAN.  
>  
> Hopefully this message will not be considered slamming the HamWAN folks in Seattle.  Please don't shoot the messenger.  The technical folks (Tom Hayward and Nigel Vander Houwen) have been extremely responsive and helpful.  I respect the vision and work that PSDR volunteers have done to date.  If you talk to your customer base, you might be surprised the help you may get.
>  
> Thanks
>  
> Scott, N7DOD 
>  
>  
>  
>  
> _______________________________________________
> Netops mailing list
> Netops at hamwan.org <mailto:Netops at hamwan.org>
> http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/netops <http://mail.hamwan.net/mailman/listinfo/netops>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mail.hamwan.net/pipermail/psdr/attachments/20181029/30c81eac/attachment.html>