Rick Jeliffe of the Australian Delegation Commented on the BRM

Rick has pulled his blog posting about the BRM for the moment due to the fact that he will be reporting into Standards Australia about the meeting. His original post can be found in web caches and he is being quoted on other blogs. I will include one quote from what he wrote, and then wait for the repost later.

…the BRM clearly has succeeded in its formal aim, which is to produce a better text. Every response by the editor was formally voted on. The big picture issues were given extra time for detailed discussion, and the NBs had opportunity to raise their highest priority issue, in turn. It would have been great to have had more time to deal with more of the middling issues: where we would have preferred some variant or augmentation of the Editor’s response to our issue or where we didn’t like his answer.

Rick also raised some concerns about the scope of issues tackled. Interestingly, he also noted the different dynamics of this BRM to many others due to the varying degrees of technical depth from the various delegations and the sheer size of the meeting. I look forward to reading his thoughts as he has a few more days to ruminate on things.

Comments (1)

  1. Glen Turner says:

    Since Rick had removed his comments, perhaps you could have considered not posting an extract?

    BTW, I recall that Rick’s blog entry was not a fully positive as your excerpt. I recall that it noted that some issues which should be considered by National Bodies were not able to be considered at the Ballot Resolution Meeting (licenses, etc).