Looks like I stirred up some opinions here...
> But what I think people are missing is NOAAPort was never truly
designed to serve anyone outside of NOAA. It is a service by NOAA, for NOAA
When I wrote this it was to convey that I don't see an equatable
replacement coming from NOAA because NOAA no longer needs it for their own
interests. At the time I really thought it was designed with NOAA
interests prioritized almost exclusively up-front, with external partners
playing a larger role that ramped up slightly later on... a point that I
stand corrected on. A sincere thank you to those who made that clear to me
and helped to change my perspective. I need to brush up on my history here.
I will stand on my larger point which is I don't think we should wait for
any replacements to come. I do, however, still believe Unidata and this
community can help lead that change like it's done before. While I was
hoping to spark some conversation about that, I admit I probably could have
found a better set of words. Thank you again to those who responded.
Dan:
> For those of us who remember back to the early 80s and the end of easy
> data, this sounds very similar...
>
Those were the very stories I have been thinking of too. I might not have
been around then myself, but Unidata's history sure seems to rhyme with the
current times.
>
> I suspect we'll find [a solution] today. But it has me worried that the
> days of the convenient one stop shop in NOAAPort are gone and we'll have to
> work with a new paradigm.
>
I agree, and a big part of where I am coming from is wanting to get started
on that work and being frustrated by not knowing how.
Ryan H.:
Thank you for taking your time to write out and share your perspective, I
mean that.
Your points are all well taken and I already agree with many of them.
You're spot on that cloud services, WIS2, etc. are NOT at all replacements
for NOAAPort, absolutely agree. And the idea that the state of the modern
internet is even more of an argument for enhancing a public-facing service,
for sure. And no doubt, the timing of this is all wrong in my opinion too;
with no overlap to test a next-gen solution this is going to get bumpy.
But thank you for pushing back and correcting me where I was wrong.
What I was trying to convey was I don't see NWS/NOAA spearheading a
sensible and fitting replacement, and to avoid complacency in waiting for
that to come. I did not mean to cause any upset and I apologize if I did.
Thank you for articulating your points so well.
Ryan M.:
> Hi Mike,
>
> I would counter with...
>
Those are solid counters.
That said, we may fundamentally disagree and that's fine.
>
I don't think we disagree as fundamentally as you think. And like I said
above, you're changing my perspective on this so thank you for the push
back.
This is part of why I share my opinions on these lists is for the dialog,
to be corrected when I'm incorrect, and I will always try to come with an
open mind. You are right, this is more of an open public service than I
had in my head.
What I fear is that it may not matter, what I fear is what could happen if
we don't begin taking on the work ourselves and soon. I hope my fears are
off.
> What really matters to me is what happens over the next year. I think
> there is an opportunity to build out a terrestrial version of NOAAPORT akin
> to previous projects like CRAFT and CONDUIT;
>
YES, like this!
to me it's the current tight timeline that makes things...tense.
>
Yup. yup.
Alan:
> I know Ryan said he is not interested in changing minds on the intent of
> NOAAPort, but I would just say as someone who was in the NWS field when all
> this started, NOAAPort was definitely always intended to serve both
> internal and external users of NOAA data.
>
Hi Alan. Thank you for helping to change the way I look at this.
Respectfully,
-Mike