From: Andrew Kirkpatrick [mailto:akirkpat@adobe.com] Sent: Thursday, June 2, 2016 3:29 PM I think that we are but in slightly different ways. I agree that we want to have a "high degree of confidence that most experts would agree” but object to the idea of placing a specific, and impossible to measure, numerical metric on that. I agree that we don’t want to say “ALL experts agree” (result of that would likely be no new SC) but ultimately the decision policy is going to dictate how we ultimately decide whether the criteria are met. I’m not concerned about numerical metrics either, but strongly support the principle. I would also maintain that the requirement is still satisfied if there exist a small number of unusual cases (rarely seen in practice) on which informed evaluators would tend to disagree. In other words, the existence of “hard cases” is compatible with presumed agreement by most informed evaluators in respect of most (ordinary) cases. ________________________________ This e-mail and any files transmitted with it may contain privileged or confidential information. It is solely for use by the individual for whom it is intended, even if addressed incorrectly. If you received this e-mail in error, please notify the sender; do not disclose, copy, distribute, or take any action in reliance on the contents of this information; and delete it from your system. Any other use of this e-mail is prohibited. Thank you for your compliance. ________________________________
Received on Thursday, 2 June 2016 19:35:12 UTC