This reply is disappointing. There are no "falsehoods" here.
One can tell from 1) the lack of open source publication 2) zero open source community participation from AMSAT-NA and 3) public statements from multiple officers and Directors clearly opposing open source and 4) a longstanding refusal to adopt written policies about the use of open source by AMSAT-NA that:
AMSAT-NA does not support open source at this time.
This is not in any doubt, especially given the most recent article by Jerry Buxton, referenced above.
This could (and should) change. I have strong faith that it will.
There's an invoice and contract from Spring 2020 that was submitted by AMSAT's legal consulting firm. It is specifically for open source ITAR/EAR policy development, and includes work for proprietary policies as a fall-back. This was a board action. It remains unpaid and unsigned.
This invoice was submitted directly to Clayton Coleman while he was president of AMSAT-NA. This invoice has been submitted to the current board of directors and all the senior officers and the current president. It was also mailed to the AMSAT office. Like, with stamps.
So far, it seems to have been ignored all three times it's been forwarded to the organization.
This is bad. At the very least, a written policy for proprietary/commercial ITAR/EAR should exist to protect the volunteers.
However, we really shouldn't settle for restrictive, expensive, and proprietary policies. There is such good news here!
Recent regulatory innovations, described fully and repeatedly to the board of directors of AMSAT, establish a clear low-risk path for open source volunteer work. No, you don't need to "rip out" existing work. No, you don't need to abandon NDAs forever. But, they should be a last resort.
High-quality licenses like CERN OHL 2.0 cover the major issues and, most importantly, allow the inclusion of proprietary tools and work. That proprietary component has to be available to the general public. It has to be something anyone can get (or pay for), in order to recreate the work. This allows the use of tools like Xilinx Vivado to create open source HDL code to implement advanced digital functions. See the CERN OHL 2.0 license website for more details.
The draft annual AMSAT budget, received this week, does not include enough money to even cover the invoiced retainer from the consulting firm. There's no mention of this work, at all, in the budget submitted. This is an extremely disappointing oversight. This budget is usually discussed at AMSAT Symposium, but was delayed this year, until now.
The proposed board meeting to discuss this budget is scheduled for 29 December 2020. I will bring this invoice up again for a fourth time. The policy work is already done - it needs a legal review and that costs money.
If you want to attend this board meeting, then speak up and contact your favorite AMSAT Officer or Director for an invitation.
AREx was definitely an AMSAT project, according to ARISS. The current status is unclear, given the uncertainty about Gateway and the halting of AREx meetings in late summer for a "reboot". Not only did I make the motion for AMSAT to formally support AREx, but I obtained written support from JAMSAT, ORI, and TAPR. I co-wrote the architecture document that was reviewed in the summer 2020 ARISS International summit. It got wildly enthusiastic and highly positive reviews and support ("phenomenal" "the most professional engineering I have seen in ARISS" "this is what I joined to see ARISS do"). It's delightful to get feedback like this. The design has only improved in the intervening months.
ORI is building that hardware architecture right now. Whether AREx continues or not (I sure hope it does) doesn't matter, since the open source elements have been adopted by three different space-related organizations and are the backbone of two SBIR grant applications.
It's disappointing that ARISS declined the fundraising support contract and (to paraphrase) told ORI to "get lost! you have cooties!". I can't explain that. It's bizarre to be told to get lost when you offer six figures of money and quality engineering work, but hey - it's *their party and they get to be in charge*. When one makes a written offer of technical and financial support directly to a senior officer of AMSAT, one expects it to be evaluated. The answer, when presented as an organizational answer, has to be taken at face value. It didn't work out this time. One cannot take it personally.
The proposed contract, declined by ARISS/AMSAT, was sent to relevant leaders, published on AMSAT-BB, and can be found in the ORI repository here:
https://github.com/phase4ground/documents/blob/master/Papers_Articles_Presentations/Articles_and_Announcements/AREx-Support-Contract-July-2020.pdfAfter it was declined (in writing), ORI moved on and found other partners. So, things worked out very well in the end. The current situation, with several open source and industry partners and a substantial increase in very positive contact with NASA, simply would not be possible staying with ARISS. ARISS completely controls contact with NASA, within the organization. It's structured in a top-down, authoritarian, and opaque manner. It declares itself the only portal to NASA for amateur radio. That's the desired pattern at ARISS. It's not inherently bad. It was well worth reaching out and interacting and attempting to formalize the relationship.
All foundations that funded ORI were strongly supportive of the plan to support ARISS.
ARISS leadership knew about the larger grant amount, before it was publicized, because I shared it with them in writing. My take is that they would rather be completely in charge than have increased funding, if that increased funding meant having to collaborate with other orgs.
ARISS leadership starting insisting late in the process on having "one team only". But, they did not provide a way for individuals to join this unspecified team. There was no repo or mailing list. There was no CoC or participant policies or agreements or anything like that. You're either on a WebEx invite for a monthly conference call, or you're not. There appears to be a lot of behind-the-scenes communication and decisions that ordinary volunteers are simply not part of. It is very informal.
This is not the way I do things, but there is definitely room for more than one way to do amateur radio in space, and those ways should not be treated like or portrayed as some sort of existential threat. I support ARISS and did a solid fundraiser for them a couple of years ago. I've helped locally with school contacts. The ISS power supply was built here in San Diego, and I got to see it happen. Totally neat!
ARISS may change their mind in the future and adopt open source designs and policies. Great, lots of us are here to help, including me. They don't want to today? No problem - I'm not the manager you're looking for.
I do look forward to AMSAT paying the invoice for legal work to establish open source ITAR/EAR policies at AMSAT, the way the US State Department intends for us to do, which will open the door to substantially increased funding and volunteer opportunities. And, a return to free and open international collaboration.
Opposing open source policy work, by burying invoices and ignoring the State Department and attacking open source in the Journal, is counter-productive to the mission of AMSAT. If the vote fails, then that's a disappointing thing, but it's just one vote. I have confidence others will follow and correct the current direction. The overall lay of the land is very clear. Open source has produced a powerfully positive sea change in technology and is the superior strategy for the Amateur Radio Satellite Service.
-Michelle W5NYV
I respectfully caution readers about echoing statements that AMSAT turned down any grant monies received by ORI.
"AMSAT isn’t getting funding like the half-million recently allocated to ORI – an amount which could easily also go to AMSAT if they were willing to work on Open Source.
Incredibly, ORI offered to share the granted funds with AMSAT/AREx, and AMSAT/AREx declined."
This statement is comprised of several falsehoods.
1. AMSAT is willing to work on Open Source. AMSAT has a decades-long history of sharing designs with the global amateur radio community. In fact, some of the AMSAT Fox Series circuit boards are published under an Open Hardware License. There is no AMSAT policy, written or otherwise, refusing Open Source development.
2. Note the use of "AMSAT/AREx" - There is no such entity name. AREx is a project separate of AMSAT, led by ARISS. The AMSAT Board of Directors, including Ms. Thompson, are aware of this. Ms Thompson voted for to affirm AMSAT's interest and participation in work for AREx, but not this mythical "AMSAT/AREx."
3. Ms. Thompson was relieved of her participation at AREx prior to the ARDC grant funding of $500,000 to ORI being announced. Part of $500,000 was never on a table for AMSAT to refuse.
4. If ORI intended to share granted monies with other entities, this should be well-documented for several reasons: 1. The entity that granted them these funds will need a full accounting and 2. Offering cash funds to another organization is something that would be typically found in minutes of the corporation. 3. A grant offer should come with some formality - a letter, or at minimum, an email to the corporate address of the entity.
5. As an AMSAT Director, wouldn't Ms. Thompson have tried to let the organization know these funds are available from ORI? She's been vocal about many other things on her blogs and social media.