Jonathan Gregory wrote:
> Dear Steve
>
>
>> I'd argue that the process for approving of a proposal needs to be a
>> more formal and rigorous than the process for developing it. The
>> number of people that ought to have read the proposal; thought about
>> it; and agreed prior to approving it may need to be larger than the
>> few who developed it. I suggest 5. Should it be more? (Could it
>> reasonably be fewer?)
>>
>
> Following yesterday's emails, I suggest that once the discussion has gone
> quiet, the moderator will recommend that the proposal be accepted if there are
> no outstanding objections and at least one person has posted support for it as
> well as the proposer.
Hi Jonathan,
This is clearly a judgment call. If the effort to achieve consensus is
too great then progress on CF could stall, move forward too slowly, or
move forward only for the most compelling of issues. If the threshold
of effort is too small, then poorly thought out changes could be
introduced that we come to regret later. I suspect that we all agree on
these limiting cases. The challenge is to find the right balance.
Is a threshold of 3 individuals in agreement a sufficient test for
consensus with no guarantee that any other individuals have ever scanned
the proposal? You have argue that in most cases the answer is yes. I
would agree with that. But is "most cases" a sufficient test? The
negative impacts of an undesirable change that slips through the review
process are often much greater than the small thing it was supposed to
fix. [I could cite a specific example, but I do not want to disrupt the
governance discussion with a technical food fight over a past
decision.] To my mind, 3 individuals is too low a threshold, especially
since two of those three are likely to be newcomers bent on a specific
new technical twist they would like to see in CF.
Can we find a compromise by asserting that there _must be at least 2
committee members involved_ in the final consensus decision? (What is
the threshold for agreeing that we have reached consensus on this
question? What is another word for "thesaurus"? ;-) )
- Steve
> We could require that all the committee vote in favour
> of it, but my understanding of the discussion in Paris was that that would not
> help particularly. I think we should reserve voting for those proposals where
> there is not a consensus and, as we agreed in Paris, such proposals can only
> be accepted if all, or all but one, of the committee vote in favour.
>
> To return to my usual refrain, on the basis of past experience, if we set
> requirements such as five people having thought in detail about the proposal
> before endorsing it, most changes would never get approved, because not enough
> people are prepared to spend that much time on CF. With such rules, CF would
> be moribund. On the other hand, I don't think there is evidence that we have
> made serious mistakes with the less stringent rules we have so far followed.
>
> Best wishes
>
> Jonathan
> _______________________________________________
> CF-metadata mailing list
> CF-metadata at cgd.ucar.edu
> http://www.cgd.ucar.edu/mailman/listinfo/cf-metadata
>
--
Steve Hankin, NOAA/PMEL -- Steven.C.Hankin at noaa.gov
7600 Sand Point Way NE, Seattle, WA 98115-0070
ph. (206) 526-6080, FAX (206) 526-6744
"The only thing necessary for the triumph of evil is for good men
to do nothing." -- Edmund Burke
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://mailman.cgd.ucar.edu/pipermail/cf-metadata/attachments/20070702/3656b6ec/attachment-0002.html>
Received on Mon Jul 02 2007 - 11:08:55 BST
