Home > Standards Blog

Advanced Search 

Welcome to ConsortiumInfo.org
Monday, March 27 2017 @ 08:09 AM CDT

The following comments are owned by whomever posted them. This site is not responsible for what they say.
See delegate links above
Authored by: Anonymous on Tuesday, March 04 2008 @ 06:27 PM CST
I too have noticed that Andy will write based on making the most forgiving of assumptions, and I both appreciate giving people the benefit of the doubt, and giving the reader what they need to draw their own conclusions :-).

So, a thought experiment: Assuming the very best in all people involved, and lets assume no rule changes where made before the BRM.

Now, to this interested observer, the rules appear to allow for "No consensus reached" as an outcome, or:
 "The NB Consensus is that a one week BRM fine tuning process is
  insufficient by 45 times ( 900 / 20) for this proposal, and that is
  a clear indication that the details are not ready (regardless of
  issues of duplication), therefore Fast Track is inappropriate"

(apologies for any off base assumptions baked into the following questions)
Why was something like the above not given some sort of hearing/vote/discussion? 

Why, for a gathering of organizations that strive to be process-centric, not outcome-centric as a means of assuring quality work, was "Stop, pick a more appropriate process" not an option? 

-- Tom (OP)
[ Parent | # ]