Melinda Shore wrote:
On 12/1/12 2:21 PM, Stephen Farrell wrote:
My reluctance to get into this is based on an opinion that process
change proposals with more words attached tend to just not happen,
so fewer words is better.
I think that's actually a pretty terrible reason. The goal is
not to get the proposal through, the goal is to improve
something. That said, while I don't like change just for the
sake of change I think that change for the sake of betterment is
a very good thing indeed. The main thing is that I've been trying
to figure out where the harm would be here and I haven't been
able to identify anything substantive. I'd be good with giving
this a limited run and seeing how it goes.
I would be more comfortable with the proposal if its applied only to
new protocols, ideas, methods, etc. The conflicts come when applying
it to established standards, methods or BIS work. While its possible
to fast track the obvious, where there is potential issues, the
proposal needs to be sensitive to fast tracking problematic issues.
--
HLS