Annex rules proposals

[s.vannostrand at kodak.com]

The energy on this topic is super valuable.  Both James and Emory's 
letters are well written and persuasive.  But I'm afraid we have done a 
super job of stating our intent without backing it up with the detail that 
the AMA asked for.  Eric H posted the reasons for Ron's proposal 
rejection.  The AMA clearly doesn't want a proposal of ideas, like put the 
sequences in an annex.  They want the idea backed up with a procedure, 
like timelines for how new sequences are adopted, how published, who runs 
the process, etc. 

I had sent my comments on this including my proposal for a controlled 
process to Ron during his review cycle.  He had said at the time he would 
include these process details in the proposal, but they didn't make it in. 
 I understand the AMA's position.  I participate in some of my company's 
regulatory and operating procedures committees and I understand how these 
bodies work.  They don't want to be held responsible for a process that 
falls apart and they don't want to be left with the job of implementing 
someone else's idea. 

If we want control over this we need to rework our proposal.  Ron and Eric 
(still NSRCA officers for the next 21 days) have talked with AMA officials 
and should be able to specifically define the AMA's "review comments".  We 
must make proposal updates and resubmit.  Maybe even run a draft by Dave 
Brown before we officially submit to make sure we hit on all buttons. 
Since Ron and Eric have most of the feedback, then maybe one of them could 
distribute the original proposal and a list of specific changes that are 
needed.  We could divide up the re-work or have one editor make a new 
proposal.  This is how it works in the real world.

--Lance
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.f3a.us/pipermail/nsrca-discussion/attachments/20021210/79770318/attachment.html