Page History
...
For other times: http://tinyurl.com/yaoz65w8
Info |
---|
PROPOSED AGENDA
BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS Compilation of Current URS Discussion Documents - 18 Jan 2018.pdf |
Info | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Adobe Connect RecordingAC Chat |
Tip | ||
---|---|---|
| ||
Apologies: Susan Payne, Petter Rindforth, Brian Beckham, Renee Fossen, Collin Kurre, Maxim Alzoba, Paul Keating, Khouloud Dawahi, Sara Bockey, Marie Pattullo, Heather Forrest, Jonathan Agmon |
Note |
---|
Notes/ Action Items Action Items |
Info |
:
Notes: 1. Co-Chairs' Statement on URS Review (page 9-10) Overview -- The Co-Chairs suggested questions / bullet points should be regarded as "addition" to the relevant Charter questions, instead of "substitutes", as there are overarching questions on page 9 too. Question 3: Have URS decisions been limited to cases meeting the “clear and convincing evidence” standard, and been properly explained? (Note: This will require a qualitative review of a statistically significant percentage of URS decisions.) -- Some WG members have concerns over the notion of "qualitative review". There is some subjectivity to it. It is not the WG's role to determine the decisions that have already been made. Qualitative review of decisions is not fair, especially when based on insufficient input. Strongly object this approach. The WG is not an independent legislative body and members come with their own views. The WG has no qualification to do the type of qualitative review. -- Instead, some alternative questions can be asked:
-- Some WG members argued that an analogy of the WG's role is more like a legislative review panel, reviewing what the rules should be. The community made the rules, and the WG should review how they are set out. The idea of completely turning off judgement is not feasible. -- Unlike the other RPMs, URS is the only RPM in Phase 1 going to be affected by the overarching question and to be determined whether it should be a consensus policy. That would argue for a more rigorous review. A way around it is to identify decisions that may be 'troublesome' and to look at what is actually happening. Some decisions were made without clear evidence or evidence at all. -- Some URS decisions likely warrant "qualitative review":
-- It is not unreasonable to review some of the decisions of the panelists. George Kirikos posted another example:
-- The WG has general agreement to amend/revise Question 3. -- The WG may consider recommending that the panelists should issue URS decisions with rationale / opinion, as the current practice does not provide that. -- The WG should consider reorganizing all the overarching questions, including the 5 suggested high-level questions on page 1, 4 general charter questions on page 9, and 4 Co-Chairs' questions on page 10. 2. Brian Beckham's comments -- Adopted suggestion in paragraph 1 3. Susan Payne's comments -- Adopted suggestion in paragraph 2 -- Adopted suggestion in paragraph 3; WG to consider if additional edits to the Co-Chairs' suggested questions (especially question 3) are needed in view of discussion on the call of 1 Feb 4. Preview of agenda of 7 Feb -- Review of the URS template by Berry Cobb, including a quick overview of the URS cases and a spreadsheet of case review elements. PROPOSED AGENDA BACKGROUND DOCUMENTS |