Subject: | |
From: | |
Reply To: | |
Date: | Sat, 30 Aug 2014 08:16:42 -0400 |
Content-Type: | multipart/alternative |
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
We can consider this a well-intended judgement call on the part of the
Chair, but it did compromised the integrity of process within NCSG. I
can understand the pressure of the time deadline and there is little to
gain from being harsh here, but we should learn from this episode.
The pressure of deadlines is real and while NCSG was discussing the
issue we should have designated someone to be formulating text for a
possible RR, and for liaison with other constituencies on the issue.
Then NCSG could have made a quick informed decision just prior to the
deadline.
In this instance I would have preferred NCSG to recognize that time had
run out, and simply move to endorse the RR after it had been submitted.
That may have given the RR a bit less weight but it would have preserved
the integrity of process within NCSG.
Again, the main lesson here should be that in the heat of the
preliminary discussions NCSG should designate someone (a volunteer) to
act as the drafting person to formulate possible text in case NCSG
decides to make a submission, and to maintain communication links with
other constituencies for collaborative action. That would have been easy
to do in this instance.
Sam L.
|
|
|