Difference between revisions of "Discussion:RecordRatificationProcedure"

From VPH
Jump to: navigation, search
Line 35: Line 35:
  
 
::Yes, I have got the same understanding of the meaning of "must not" and "need not". My intention was to prevent the RCC from repeating reviews unless a "desired" outcome is reached. Therefore, I think that "must not" is the right term. --[[Utilisateur:Eteufel|Eteufel]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Eteufel|discussion]]) 24 juin 2014 à 13:56 (CEST)  
 
::Yes, I have got the same understanding of the meaning of "must not" and "need not". My intention was to prevent the RCC from repeating reviews unless a "desired" outcome is reached. Therefore, I think that "must not" is the right term. --[[Utilisateur:Eteufel|Eteufel]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Eteufel|discussion]]) 24 juin 2014 à 13:56 (CEST)  
 +
 +
:::For me it is not clear either way what is meant! Please reword before voting. --[[Utilisateur:Theosch|Theosch]] ([[Discussion utilisateur:Theosch|discussion]]) 19 août 2014 à 16:54 (CEST)
  
 
== Step 8 ==
 
== Step 8 ==

Revision as of 16:54, 19 August 2014

Contents

Step 6: Reviewer reports

I would like to suggest to ask the reviewers to write a very brief report about what they checked and their opinion about the record attempt report. This review report would eventually be published along with all the material sent in by the candidate(s). By "reviewer report" I do not mean that the reviewers should fill several pages with a very detailed text. But I would very much like to have a couple of sentences of them (e.g. "I have checked this and that and found it free of errors and plausible...") and here is why:

I do consider record committee members trustworthy people that do not have to be controlled tightly. However, if I have an honest look at myself, I tend to be lazy - especially when put under pressure. Frankly, I can imagine that I would just rate an attempt report "accept" when I know that I will not have enough time to have a closer look - just not to disappoint others. I suppose that this is quite human and that I am not the only person who feels like that. My experience to overcome this (my) "limitation" is to add some "social control". When I know that others not only expect a rating but also some reasoning along with it, and that this gets published, I am much more likely to invest more time and to be more precise and honest about what I really did.

So I think that by demanding a couple of sentences to explain the rating, we could increase quality (and speed) of the review significantly.

--Eteufel (discussion) 20 mai 2014 à 14:08 (CEST)

Step 1

I've removed "email alias" records@whpva.org, as we don't have access to the whpva.org mail server yet. Also, an alias isn't checked: it works or doesn't. Secondly I added "by mail", as record attempts shouldn't be restricted to users of email or computers. Thirdly, I've changed "he" to the passive form. --Theosch (discussion) 24 mai 2014 à 13:32 (CEST)


Thanks, Theo, for pointing this out. Obviously, my wording was not ideal. The alias "records@whpva.org" was meant as a placeholder. I strongly think that we have to offer some email address for record candidates to send their reports to. How is this handled currently? Can someone please propose a decent email (alias) for this?
And by "checking the alias" I did not mean to check whether or not the alias works. You are right, Theo, that we normally do not do this. I wanted to say that the RCC is supposed to check the email account the alias points to for new incoming mails regularly. Maybe we should work on the wording?
Lastly, I want to strongly urge candidates to send in their material in digital form. Hand-written documents etc. are very hard to process for us (think of having to hard-copy them, wrap them in envelopes and send them to all over Europe/the world...). So, the RCC or someone would have to digitalise the material anyway. That is certainly OK for a couple of text-documents (scanning suffices maybe) but what about detailed time keeping reports with lots of numbers that need to be processed electronically or even GPS data? I also want to emphasize that we put a much higher burden (in my view) on record report authors by demanding to write the report in English... We in fact do exclude non-English-speaking candidates...
On the other hand side I can see your point, Theo, of not wanting to exclude people without access to computers. Can we agree on a compromise that the RCC digitalises analog material for internal processing - if this is not too much work? Would that be OK for you? --Eteufel (discussion) 30 mai 2014 à 23:51 (UTC)
As you say most people will send digital material and in order to keep the time deadlines it will have to be forwarded by internet and any paperwork scanned first. --Theosch (discussion) 1 juin 2014 à 19:20 (UTC)
At first, I thought this discussion a bit weird, but indeed there are nations whose subjects have limited internet access. So I agree that mail should be acceptable.--ThomasWolf (discussion) 2 juin 2014 à 20:28 (UTC)
Ok. I have added the task of digitalizing the material to step 2. Record reports sent in via mail (not eMail) are now "fully supported and acceptable". --Eteufel (discussion) 24 juin 2014 à 13:52 (CEST)

Step 7

In my understanding of the english language, there is a difference between "Accepted reviews must not be repeated" and "Accepted reviews need not be repeated". I guess, in this case the latter would be more to the point.--ThomasWolf (discussion) 2 juin 2014 à 20:32 (UTC)

Yes, I have got the same understanding of the meaning of "must not" and "need not". My intention was to prevent the RCC from repeating reviews unless a "desired" outcome is reached. Therefore, I think that "must not" is the right term. --Eteufel (discussion) 24 juin 2014 à 13:56 (CEST)
For me it is not clear either way what is meant! Please reword before voting. --Theosch (discussion) 19 août 2014 à 16:54 (CEST)

Step 8

Contact data of the new record holder must be part of the observers' report. We do not accept anonymous records attempts.--ThomasWolf (discussion) 2 juin 2014 à 20:42 (UTC)

Ok. I have updated the procedure and minimum requirements pages accordingly. --Eteufel (discussion) 24 juin 2014 à 14:01 (CEST)

Step 9

"all published material complies with potential non-disclosure agreements with involved entities (e.g. track owners)" This is imortant. Personally, I simply do not ask any questions about those non-disclosure requirements. We are glad to have access to the tracks, so we will not do anything that might close a track for us. The observers should mention any such agreements in their e-mail accompanying the report. Else the RCC might find his job rather difficult.--ThomasWolf (discussion) 2 juin 2014 à 20:42 (UTC)