Skip to Content.
Sympa Menu

msar-riders - Re: [MSAR] What standard is-- defacto, dejure, and maybe

msar-riders@lists.ibiblio.org

Subject: Mounted search and rescue

List archive

Chronological Thread  
  • From: Una Smith <una.smith@att.net>
  • To: Mounted search and rescue <msar-riders@lists.ibiblio.org>
  • Subject: Re: [MSAR] What standard is-- defacto, dejure, and maybe
  • Date: Tue, 18 Jul 2006 13:44:44 -0600

Irv Lichtenstein wrote:
>The ASTM is a voluntary concensus organization which means that every member
>of a standards drafting committee must agree on every word or phrase in the
>standard before it goes up one level of voting.

That would be a recipe for gridlock. Fortunately, ASTM's process is
more complex than that. If an individual votes on a ballot against
any point in a draft standard, they must include a written explanation
of what they disagree with and *propose a remedy*. The individual's
negative vote may be accepted by the technical point of contact (TPOC)
of the document, by the subcommittee in a meeting (these occur every
6 months), by the full subcommittee in a formal mail/internet ballot,
by the committee, or by all ASTM voting members. If a negative is
accepted at any of these levels, the document goes back for revision.
However, the negative vote may also be rejected by all of the above.

This constitutes a very elaborate form of due process to ensure that
any and all contrary opinions are thoroughly considered. However, it
is *not* a compromise process.


> There is currently
>a task group on MSAR. It has proposed over 9 drafts which have received
>essentially the same objection from the same person(s) each time.

The task group is MSAR-ASTM. It has seen 9 drafts of a particular
standard. Only two of those drafts have gone to ballot within ASTM,
at the subcommittee level. I am the TPOC. On the first ballot, I
accepted a negative to the effect that although the draft's title
referred to "search and rescue", the content included no rescue per
se. SAR responders who primarily do rescue, as opposed to search,
are sensitive to this issue, and I respect that. One the second
ballot, I accepted a negative to the effect that, although the title
specified "search", the document included some content not specific
to search alone.

There were other negatives. That is to be expected, and in part it
is due to the very large group of stakeholders who have gathered on
MSAR-ASTM, but also because F32.02's membership has a very broad
view of SAR, and from some points of view some items in each draft
were problematic. Most of their negatives can be resolved by better
wording in the document, but some may need eventually to go to a
vote. ASTM subcommittee F32.02 members who were present at the May
and November 2005 meetings helped me by discussing all negatives
despite the drafts being withdrawn by me for further revision, but
please note that doing so is not part of ASTM's formal due process.

Una Smith
New Mexico




Archive powered by MHonArc 2.6.24.

Top of Page