Annex rules proposals

[Bill Glaze]

Lance:
Good idea.  Briefly: eliminate all possible reasons for rejection,
before taking any Draconian measures.  Makes sense.

Bill Glaze

s.vannostrand at kodak.com wrote:

>
> 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/df253550/attachment.html