Tim Churches wrote: > Although I find all these > selling-the-work-of-unpaid-committees-and-contributors arrangements a > bit strange, I think that the main areas for reform are the transparency > of the committee membership process (including diversification of > committee membership and mandatory and publicly-accessible declarations > of conflicts of interest), making committee mtgs virtual or more > accessible to members who can't attend in person or in business hours, > making minutes of all committee meetings publicly available, and > providing much better mechanisms for input and active contribution form > non-committee members from the earliest phases of standards development, > again with complete transparency of all contributions.
To be fair, Standards Australia already publish reasonably detailed minutes of technical committee meetings, including copies of presentations and handouts, although the attendees at each meeting are not always identified. But the other areas needing reform or greater attention which I mention about still stand, I think. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
