3,197
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 82:
Line 82: − + + +
Second Security, Stability, and Resiliency Review (view source)
Revision as of 22:13, 17 August 2021
, 2 years ago→Board Rationale
===Board Rationale===
===Board Rationale===
The Board Rationale document is notable for its length - typically, even in complex situations, the rationale is not so long as to require an attachment to the recorded minutes. The board noted several themes among the recommendations, which in some cases made a particular recommendation impossible to approve as an ''a priori'' matter:
The Board Rationale document is notable for its length - typically, even in complex situations, the rationale is not so long as to require an attachment to the recorded minutes. The board cited Article 4.6 as the basis for the comprehensive and lengthy rationale document:
<blockquote>The categorization approach allows for additional community consultation and information gathering where necessary, such as where recommendations are not clear or present inconsistencies with advice or other community work and public input. Further, the approach ensures Board accountability to the Bylaws-mandated deadline to take action on the recommendations within six months of receipt of a final report. The Bylaws require that for every Specific Review recommendation that the Board does not accept, the Board must provide a rationale supporting its action.<ref name="rationale" /></blockquote>
The board noted several themes among the recommendations, which in some cases made a particular recommendation impossible to approve as an ''a priori'' matter:
* ''SSR2 recommendations are considerable in number, complex, and have interdependencies with other significant areas of work underway.'' The board noted in its scorecard when such other areas of work were implicated by (or addressed the same subject matter as) a given recommendation.
* ''SSR2 recommendations are considerable in number, complex, and have interdependencies with other significant areas of work underway.'' The board noted in its scorecard when such other areas of work were implicated by (or addressed the same subject matter as) a given recommendation.
* ''Some recommendations contain components that the Board cannot approve, along with components that are feasible, and in some cases already being done.'' Per Maarten Botterman's comment, above, the board rejected these recommendations, even in situations where they agreed in principle with the spirit of the recommendation.
* ''Some recommendations contain components that the Board cannot approve, along with components that are feasible, and in some cases already being done.'' Per Maarten Botterman's comment, above, the board rejected these recommendations, even in situations where they agreed in principle with the spirit of the recommendation.