Page Comparison

• compliance for minutes (and scribe) still pending.  Rob Underwood (Deactivated) ?
• FDC3 certification & badge still pending
• Welcome email draft done (see below)
• welcome slide posted
• FDC3 meetups any updates?

Draft:  

• visit the FDC3 Confluence site and Github Organization
• Document and share your use cases
• Participate in a Working Group
• Implement the standards in your organization
• Contribute to reference implementations
• Provide feedback on proposals, drafts, and specifications
• Contribute to the steering meeting

1. FDC3 is not trying to define a feature complete system for interoperability.  FDC3 seeks to standardize the critical interfaces and touchpoints that will maximize the opportunities for interoperability across the industry.
2. We are coming to this process with a crowded field of many proprietary solutions providing a range of overlapping functionality.   Many of these are feature complete systems for interoperability - within their domains.  FDC3 seeks to provide what we don’t have today:  a standard that spans across these individual implementations.
3. This is not a perfect or clear cut process and we need to take the long view.  While under-specifying carries risk of fragmentation.  Because, given a vacuum, different proprietary approaches will fill the void left by light standards.  We are already living with fragmentation and it is always possible to unwind fragmentation.  Over-specifying, on the other hand carries a much greater risk of significant effort spent on a standard that will not and cannot gain traction because it runs counter to use cases, is too complicated to implement, or steps into areas of real competitive value for stakeholders.  For these reasons, the standards process is an inherently slow grind.
4. Criteria for a successful proposal is not just that it's a useful feature.  Proposals must, among other things, demonstrate that significant and mutual efficiencies would be gained and/or opportunities unlocked by the existence of the standard

1. 1. The proposal isn’t picking winners and losers among stakeholders.  
   2. The proposed standard doesn’t set an overly high cost of implementation and maintenance for the implementor.
   3. The proposal doesn’t run counter to accepted best practices.
   4. There is maximum reasonable flexibility around the requirement for implementors apply their own value.
2. Finally, in the interest of the actual success of FDC3 standards, it seems that the best approach may be to standardize the bare minimum, work on getting things working in the various platforms we represent.  Observe what works, what doesn’t, what the gaps are, then iterate on the standards, and repeat.