Re: Re[2]: CfC: Approve draft charter for AC review

I think this is a key one:

KHS: I am objecting to providing an incomplete, non-stable, set of SC from any of the TFs in 2.1

As one of those less experienced in this process, I am assuming we don’t have time/resource to work through all of the possible SCs for 2018.

I’m struggling to square that position, as we have to either:

·         Do a sub-set of the total SCs for 2.1, or

·         Extend the timeline, or

·         Increase the resource.

Or perhaps focus on one task force at a time? (I don’t think anyone is suggesting that, I’m grasping at straws.)

We’ve had consensus on the 2.1 approach (rather than extensions), people are committed to 2.1 in 2018, and we all understand the constraints of people’s time. I don’t understand how we can get to this point and then baulk?

What I am assuming is that we can go through a process where the SCs are evaluated, worked on, and a “stable”, coherent set be made into 2.1.  I don’t know how big a sub-set that will be, but there are plenty of fairly low-hanging fruit that would make it worthwhile.

If that assumption isn’t correct, we might as well admit that 2.1 will be on the same timescale as Silver, scrap it, and focus on Silver. (Which would probably torpedo our charter, and I would very much disagree with taking that route.)

Sorry for the frustration evident in this email, I’m just trying to work out how we got to this stage and what it means.

-Alastair