NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
NOTICE: This version of the NSF Unidata web site (archive.unidata.ucar.edu) is no longer being updated.
Current content can be found at unidata.ucar.edu.
To learn about what's going on, see About the Archive Site.
Dave, > I understand the frustration that derives from having your contract- > cancellation decision driven by faulty scheduling information, and > I'm sorry that we at Unidata were unable to give better predictions > about the uncertainties that pertained (such as the AWIPS linkages > you reference). That wasn't your (UNIDATA's) fault! Do not worry about it. > NOAAport always would be driven _primarily_ by AWIPS needs. As I > understand it, there was early discussion about the satellite > broadcast being a _closed_ system, so that it could be adapted > quickly to AWIPS needs without concern as to how a larger user base > would be affected. Hence, I feel quite grateful about the immensely > positive impact the openness of NOAAport has had upon Unidata and > others, and I favor being tolerant in respect to the primary decision > drivers for the data broadcast. > > Finally, I think the value of our ldm-users list is greatest if we > use it as a vehicle for problem solving, with a minimum of flames. I > take pride in Unidata's mutually beneficial relationship with the > NWS, so I ask you and other users of this list to be gentle and > constructive as a rule of thumb. I think we all will benefit from > that posture... I agree! Don't get me wrong, NOAAport is almost the best thing since sliced bread! And no flame was intended, but a criticism was. Because the National Weather Service has decided to go the route with NOAAport that they have, they have put external users as a priority. Because of this, all of the major private vendors (such as WSI, Kavouras, Accu-Weather, etc) and many other smaller firms rely on it. I guess what I am trying to say is...there seems to be a problem with service that is intended to be delivered and what is actually delivered. I have no problem with "OK, from here on out, NOAAport is completely driven by AWIPS, and we'll let you feed off of it, but we are not responsible for timely notification of changes to you". I really just want to know where the National Weather Service stands on this, so I (and I'm sure everyone else) can plan accordingly. So let me say in closing that I apologize if I made anyone angry, or if my message came across as a flame. But, as a result of this unannounced change in plans, serious problems have been created. And, I'm still left wondering how I should prepare for future NOAAport changes. ******************************************************************************* Gilbert Sebenste ******** Internet: gilbert@xxxxxxx (My opinions only!) ****** Staff Meteorologist, Northern Illinois University **** E-mail: sebenste@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx *** web: http://weather.admin.niu.edu ** Work phone: 815-753-5492 * *******************************************************************************
ldm-users archives: