Do we need more subgroups. #poll


Mike KB8JNM
 

Mike, I respectfully understand your position, but not many even understand the difference.

Could we settle on a Bridge Subgroup and at least four of the most popular bridge groups (whatever they are)
and a 3rd group of everything else.
To monitor or sort for help reading all of it in 2/3 groups is not much help for anyone involved.

...mike/kb8jnm

They need to be separated by the search/need pattern. I understand that will change over time.

On 3/13/2019 2:35 PM, Mike Zingman - N4IRR wrote:
A different way to slice this is to have a small set of subgroups that talk about format bridges
AMBE <--> AMBE
AMBE <--> IMBE
DSTAR <--> ANYTHING ELSE


Pierre Martel
 

I did not read the whole tread but I have been reading a lot of the group question.

Can I suggest something like 
A group for planification and general use of the software Like what is needed to do such or such bridge or other good parctice.
Then a group for bridging and transcoding problem ( bad port what ini files and where. stuff like that)

Then a group for each specific software.

Just my 2 cents. 

 

Le mer. 13 mars 2019 à 16:17, Steve KC1AWV <smiller@...> a écrit :
I'm kind of leaning towards Mike N4IRR's idea. Though, maybe the groups could be broken up to which programs are needed for the mode/network you're bridging. ASL to BM is easier than say ASL to XLX as it only needs AB and MB, but XLX needs DG for DMR as well. Or BM to DStar, you'd need two MBs and ircDDBGW to go to a REF. There's more than one way to skin a cat here. Maybe start with groups for the input system?

ASL <-> DStar REF
ASL <-> XLX
ASL <-> BM

USRP <-> DStar
USRP <-> XLX
USRP <-> BM

etc...


Steve KC1AWV
 

I'm kind of leaning towards Mike N4IRR's idea. Though, maybe the groups could be broken up to which programs are needed for the mode/network you're bridging. ASL to BM is easier than say ASL to XLX as it only needs AB and MB, but XLX needs DG for DMR as well. Or BM to DStar, you'd need two MBs and ircDDBGW to go to a REF. There's more than one way to skin a cat here. Maybe start with groups for the input system?

ASL <-> DStar REF
ASL <-> XLX
ASL <-> BM

USRP <-> DStar
USRP <-> XLX
USRP <-> BM

etc...


Steve N4IRS
 

DMR, YSFn, NXDN <-> DMR, YSFn, NXDN
DMR, YSFn, NXDN <-> YSFw, P25
D-Star <-> Any



On 3/13/2019 2:35 PM, Mike Zingman - N4IRR wrote:
A different way to slice this is to have a small set of subgroups that talk about format bridges

AMBE <--> AMBE
AMBE <--> IMBE
DSTAR <--> ANYTHING ELSE


Steve N4IRS
 

It makes sense but I see the questions Is NXDN AMBE or IMBE?

On 3/13/2019 2:35 PM, Mike Zingman - N4IRR wrote:
A different way to slice this is to have a small set of subgroups that talk about format bridges

AMBE <--> AMBE
AMBE <--> IMBE
DSTAR <--> ANYTHING ELSE


Mike Zingman - N4IRR
 

A different way to slice this is to have a small set of subgroups that talk about format bridges

AMBE <--> AMBE
AMBE <--> IMBE
DSTAR <--> ANYTHING ELSE


Steve N4IRS
 

OK, Without ASL below are the base permutations. From that let's eliminate some obvious "I doubt anyone would do this"

Based on Russells comment that most bridges involve DMR
DMR <-> D-Stsr
DMR <-> YSF
DMR <-> NXDN
DMR <-> P25

D-Star <-> YSF
D-Star <-> NXDN
D-Star <-> P25 (I doubt anyone would do this)

YSF <-> NXDN
YSF <-> P25

NXDN <-> P25

BTW, this kinda ignores YSFn vs YSFw

Anyone else care to eliminate a bridge? I'm leaning to create the first four Subgroups and see what happens.

Steve


 

I agree assumptions usually get broken fast.

I'm strictly making that comment from what I've seen on this email list and what I've been asked to build for others that reach out to me. AllStar <> DMR being the most common and what builds to the bigger bridges that also include other modes.

destination may not have been the right word as all systems in a bridge is where we expect to hear audio. We this group lays out a bridge flow it usually has a start and end and the end is what i meant by destination in that <> flow.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:57 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
I don't agree with the assumption that DMR is involved in every bridge. Does a bridge have a destination?


On 3/13/2019 1:53 PM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
without making it "complicated". The destination would be the topic name.
I think we can assume DMR is the core mode. I don't think I've seen a bridge system someone has worked on that hasn't inluded DMR in the mix with the exception of one i'll talk about later.

I would think subgroups would be Allstar (we already have), main (already have for DMR and general), D-STAR, YSF, P25, NXDN. if you post in those subgroups then the assumption you are tying to bridge dmr to that mode. 

In the case of one i saw was allstar to YSF then you would probably pick YSF group and notate in the subject ASL <> YSF. 

i think this would keep things mostly separated as for topic discussions.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:02 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?

Steve

On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
So,
A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are. 

Steve 



Steve N4IRS
 

I don't agree with the assumption that DMR is involved in every bridge. Does a bridge have a destination?


On 3/13/2019 1:53 PM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
without making it "complicated". The destination would be the topic name.
I think we can assume DMR is the core mode. I don't think I've seen a bridge system someone has worked on that hasn't inluded DMR in the mix with the exception of one i'll talk about later.

I would think subgroups would be Allstar (we already have), main (already have for DMR and general), D-STAR, YSF, P25, NXDN. if you post in those subgroups then the assumption you are tying to bridge dmr to that mode. 

In the case of one i saw was allstar to YSF then you would probably pick YSF group and notate in the subject ASL <> YSF. 

i think this would keep things mostly separated as for topic discussions.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:02 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?

Steve

On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
So,
A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are. 

Steve 



Jim Gifford - K9AGR
 

That sounds like a reasonable way to handle it to me.

On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:53 PM, Russell, KV4S <russelljthomas@...> wrote:

without making it "complicated". The destination would be the topic name.
I think we can assume DMR is the core mode. I don't think I've seen a bridge system someone has worked on that hasn't inluded DMR in the mix with the exception of one i'll talk about later.

I would think subgroups would be Allstar (we already have), main (already have for DMR and general), D-STAR, YSF, P25, NXDN. if you post in those subgroups then the assumption you are tying to bridge dmr to that mode. 

In the case of one i saw was allstar to YSF then you would probably pick YSF group and notate in the subject ASL <> YSF. 

i think this would keep things mostly separated as for topic discussions.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:02 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?

Steve

On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
So,
A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are. 

Steve 





Mike KB8JNM
 

I think that has it as far as I can see except as you mentioned ASL

On 3/13/2019 1:50 PM, Steve N4IRS wrote:
Did I miss any?
D-Star <-> DMR
D-Star <-> YSF
D-Star <-> NXDN
D-Star <-> P25
DMR <-> YSF
DMR <-> NXDN
DMR <-> P25
YSF <-> NXDN
YSF <-> P25
NXDN <-> P25
This is without ASL
On 3/13/2019 1:44 PM, Jim Gifford - K9AGR wrote:
A subgroup per bridge pair could quickly get out of hand.  For N modes, you'd end up with (N * (N-1)) / 2 subgroups.

For 5 modes, that's 10 bridging subgroups.

For 7 modes, you're up to 21 bridging subgroups.

Just off the top of my head, there's Analog, D-Star, YSF Narrow, YSF Wide, DMR, NXDN, and P25, and perhaps more I don't remember or haven't heard of.  That's already 7 modes, or 21 subgroups.

While the topics within would be extremely specific, it would suck having to create all the subgroups.

Personally, I think it might be time for splitting the traffic up some.  But where the dividing lines should fall isn't clear to me yet. Hence my vote for none of the above.

73,
Jim K9AGR

On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Mike KB8JNM <groupio@midnighteng.com <mailto:groupio@midnighteng.com>> wrote:

I would suggest
A separate bridge subgroup for the pair <>


On 3/13/2019 1:02 PM, Steve N4IRS wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?
Steve
On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@msgstor.com <mailto:szingman@msgstor.com><mailto:szingman@msgstor.com>> wrote:

    So,
    A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though
    the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people
    that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are.

    Steve


 

without making it "complicated". The destination would be the topic name.
I think we can assume DMR is the core mode. I don't think I've seen a bridge system someone has worked on that hasn't inluded DMR in the mix with the exception of one i'll talk about later.

I would think subgroups would be Allstar (we already have), main (already have for DMR and general), D-STAR, YSF, P25, NXDN. if you post in those subgroups then the assumption you are tying to bridge dmr to that mode. 

In the case of one i saw was allstar to YSF then you would probably pick YSF group and notate in the subject ASL <> YSF. 

i think this would keep things mostly separated as for topic discussions.

On Wed, Mar 13, 2019 at 12:02 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?

Steve

On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
So,
A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are. 

Steve 


Jim Gifford - K9AGR
 

The (N - 1) accounted for the fact that bridges work in 2 directions.  Otherwise it would be N*N / 2.

On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:50 PM, Mike KB8JNM <groupio@...> wrote:

I would understand that it is a number of subgroups, but I don't think as many as you state because you are counting some twice.

DMR <> YSF would include YSF <> DMR

But in any case, a BRIDGING subgroup might be in order as a start till more is sorted out.

On 3/13/2019 1:44 PM, Jim Gifford - K9AGR wrote:
A subgroup per bridge pair could quickly get out of hand.  For N modes, you'd end up with (N * (N-1)) / 2 subgroups.
For 5 modes, that's 10 bridging subgroups.
For 7 modes, you're up to 21 bridging subgroups.
Just off the top of my head, there's Analog, D-Star, YSF Narrow, YSF Wide, DMR, NXDN, and P25, and perhaps more I don't remember or haven't heard of.  That's already 7 modes, or 21 subgroups.
While the topics within would be extremely specific, it would suck having to create all the subgroups.
Personally, I think it might be time for splitting the traffic up some.  But where the dividing lines should fall isn't clear to me yet. Hence my vote for none of the above.
73,
Jim K9AGR
On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Mike KB8JNM <groupio@...> wrote:

I would suggest
A separate bridge subgroup for the pair <>


On 3/13/2019 1:02 PM, Steve N4IRS wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?
Steve
On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@... <mailto:szingman@...> <mailto:szingman@... <mailto:szingman@...>>> wrote:

    So,
    A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though
    the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people
    that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are.

    Steve






Steve N4IRS
 

Did I miss any?
D-Star <-> DMR
D-Star <-> YSF
D-Star <-> NXDN
D-Star <-> P25

DMR <-> YSF
DMR <-> NXDN
DMR <-> P25

YSF <-> NXDN
YSF <-> P25

NXDN <-> P25

This is without ASL

On 3/13/2019 1:44 PM, Jim Gifford - K9AGR wrote:
A subgroup per bridge pair could quickly get out of hand.  For N modes, you'd end up with (N * (N-1)) / 2 subgroups.

For 5 modes, that's 10 bridging subgroups.

For 7 modes, you're up to 21 bridging subgroups.

Just off the top of my head, there's Analog, D-Star, YSF Narrow, YSF Wide, DMR, NXDN, and P25, and perhaps more I don't remember or haven't heard of.  That's already 7 modes, or 21 subgroups.

While the topics within would be extremely specific, it would suck having to create all the subgroups.

Personally, I think it might be time for splitting the traffic up some.  But where the dividing lines should fall isn't clear to me yet. Hence my vote for none of the above.

73,
Jim K9AGR

On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Mike KB8JNM <groupio@...> wrote:

I would suggest
A separate bridge subgroup for the pair <>


On 3/13/2019 1:02 PM, Steve N4IRS wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?
Steve
On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@... <mailto:szingman@...>> wrote:

    So,
    A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though
    the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people
    that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are.

    Steve





Mike KB8JNM
 

I would understand that it is a number of subgroups, but I don't think as many as you state because you are counting some twice.

DMR <> YSF would include YSF <> DMR

But in any case, a BRIDGING subgroup might be in order as a start till more is sorted out.

On 3/13/2019 1:44 PM, Jim Gifford - K9AGR wrote:
A subgroup per bridge pair could quickly get out of hand. For N modes, you'd end up with (N * (N-1)) / 2 subgroups.
For 5 modes, that's 10 bridging subgroups.
For 7 modes, you're up to 21 bridging subgroups.
Just off the top of my head, there's Analog, D-Star, YSF Narrow, YSF Wide, DMR, NXDN, and P25, and perhaps more I don't remember or haven't heard of. That's already 7 modes, or 21 subgroups.
While the topics within would be extremely specific, it would suck having to create all the subgroups.
Personally, I think it might be time for splitting the traffic up some. But where the dividing lines should fall isn't clear to me yet. Hence my vote for none of the above.
73,
Jim K9AGR

On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Mike KB8JNM <groupio@midnighteng.com> wrote:

I would suggest
A separate bridge subgroup for the pair <>


On 3/13/2019 1:02 PM, Steve N4IRS wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?
Steve
On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@msgstor.com <mailto:szingman@msgstor.com> <mailto:szingman@msgstor.com <mailto:szingman@msgstor.com>>> wrote:

So,
A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though
the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people
that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are.

Steve


Jim Gifford - K9AGR
 

A subgroup per bridge pair could quickly get out of hand.  For N modes, you'd end up with (N * (N-1)) / 2 subgroups.

For 5 modes, that's 10 bridging subgroups.

For 7 modes, you're up to 21 bridging subgroups.

Just off the top of my head, there's Analog, D-Star, YSF Narrow, YSF Wide, DMR, NXDN, and P25, and perhaps more I don't remember or haven't heard of.  That's already 7 modes, or 21 subgroups.

While the topics within would be extremely specific, it would suck having to create all the subgroups.

Personally, I think it might be time for splitting the traffic up some.  But where the dividing lines should fall isn't clear to me yet. Hence my vote for none of the above.

73,
Jim K9AGR

On Mar 13, 2019, at 1:11 PM, Mike KB8JNM <groupio@...> wrote:

I would suggest
A separate bridge subgroup for the pair <>


On 3/13/2019 1:02 PM, Steve N4IRS wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?
Steve
On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@... <mailto:szingman@...>> wrote:

    So,
    A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though
    the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people
    that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are.

    Steve




Lito - WI6Y
 

I would agree with Mike (JNM).


From: main@DVSwitch.groups.io <main@DVSwitch.groups.io> on behalf of Mike KB8JNM <groupio@...>
Sent: Wednesday, March 13, 2019 10:11 AM
To: main@DVSwitch.groups.io
Subject: Re: [DVSwitch] Do we need more subgroups.
 
I would suggest
A separate bridge subgroup for the pair <>


On 3/13/2019 1:02 PM, Steve N4IRS wrote:
> So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what
> subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?
>
> Steve
>
> On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
>> somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got
>> a backlog of messages from being away a few days......
>>
>> I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to
>> ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big
>> email list.
>>
>> Example Allstar subgroup vs main.
>>
>> On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...
>> <mailto:szingman@...>> wrote:
>>
>>     So,
>>     A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though
>>     the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people
>>     that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are.
>>
>>     Steve
>>
>
>
>
>
>




Mike KB8JNM
 

I would suggest
A separate bridge subgroup for the pair <>

On 3/13/2019 1:02 PM, Steve N4IRS wrote:
So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?
Steve
On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@msgstor.com <mailto:szingman@msgstor.com>> wrote:

    So,
    A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though
    the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people
    that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are.

    Steve


Steve N4IRS
 

So the question becomes, I want to build a DMR <-> D-Star bridge, what subgroup do I use? DMR? D-Star?

Steve

On 3/13/2019 9:08 AM, Russell, KV4S wrote:
somehow i missed it too i must have marked everything read when i got a backlog of messages from being away a few days......

I'm very much in favor of the subgroups, it makes things easier to ready when you know the topic ahead of time vs all being in one big email list.

Example Allstar subgroup vs main.

On Tue, Mar 12, 2019 at 6:31 PM Steve N4IRS <szingman@...> wrote:
So,
A very interesting thing has shown up in the voting so far. Though the majority of votes want separate subgroups, some of the people that answer questions voted to leave things the way they are. 

Steve 


Steve N4IRS
 

Jon,
Maybe someone in the HB subgroup can take it on, Mike and I are up to our ears right now.

Steve

On 3/13/2019 9:37 AM, Jon K1IMD wrote:
Hi Steve,
I too missed the post about the poll.  I typically do not use the web portal and maybe that is why.  In any event, groups for each "mode" would be helpful.  For instance, most of the traffic on DVSwitch is AllStar bridging & transcoding based which presently is of no interest to me.  Maybe some day... and I will know where to find the information.

On the other hand... IPSC_Bridge and HB_Bridge and it's associated applications are critical to keeping my repeaters connected to c-Bridges.

BTW, is there presently any work going on to incorporate hblink3 into HB_Bridge?  I have helped build a few bridges to c-Bridges around the country and the c-Bridge ops would like to have some controls on loading the connection.  This is supported in hblink3 but not easily in HB_Bridge.

73
Jon
K1IMD