[MRIC] ICS 213 - Request Your Input

[Pat Scolla]

Al,

With all due respect, I do not believe I misunderstood you in your 
earlier e-mail to the ROs (and I like how you switched forums on us with 
respect to this topic - it was not a topic you started on MRIC, but 
somehow you are bringing it to MRIC). 

The very least you could do is to stay consistent with which e-mail list 
you are using to discuss any given topic and not hop about from group to 
group.  That way the readers are able to read not only what you have to 
say on the matter, but also what the party to whom you are responding 
had to say about the matter under discussion.

In your earlier e-mail to the ROs (and not via the MRIC e-mail 
reflector) you stated "Please provide any further comments on these 
after the COMMEX."  Whether you call them comments, or I call them 
discussions, or someone else calls them feedback, I still believe they 
should occur in one of two places - the MRIC e-mail forum, or at an MRIC 
meeting.  I believe that comments will lead to discussion and that will 
ultimately lead to more confusion on the ICS-213, who said what, when 
what was said, etc.  So please, limit the solicitation of comments 
regarding the adoption of a "standard" ICS-213 to either the MRIC e-mail 
reflector or to an official MRIC meeting.

Remember, we not only need to be accurate in our handling of 
information, we must also be consistent.

73,
Pat Scolla, WB0EGR
Harford County RO & EC




al.fitzsimons at att.net wrote:
> Appreciate hearing from the WASH, BACO, FRED, HARF, KENT, STMA, TALB, and WICO  jurisdictions who have provided ideas on how the ICS 213 General Message should look and function.  
> Would especially like to hear from the other jurisdictions concerning the features you would like to see and the reasons why and those you would like removed and the reasons why.
>
> I also wanted to clear up two misconceptions:
> Pat - 
> I believe you misunderstood my request for any further comments (not discussion) on the draft ICS 213 General Message form after the upcoming COMMEX.  As you mention in your comments, the MRIC and particularly this QTH reflector are the best venues to use for this.
> Ray - 
> As of April 3, there was insufficient feedback to justify changing items on the existing draft.  Rest assured your comments count and are appreciated and will be given full consideration.  
>
> Thanks for your participation in this important task.  But keep in mind that as further guidance is forthcoming (the revised NIMS manual is due out in September) and more extensive experience is amassed, it is likely that revisions will result.
>
> Al, W3YRS
> ______________________________________________________________
> This email list is for the use of RACES Officers and Emergency Managers. Only email related to the Maryland RACES Interoperabilty Committee (MRIC) of the Maryland Emergency Management Association should be sent to this email reflector list. All emails must be in plain text format (no HTML).
> MRIC mailing list
> Home: http://mailman.qth.net/mailman/listinfo/mric
> Help: http://mailman.qth.net/mmmain.htm
> Post: mailto:MRIC at mailman.qth.net
>
>
>