mike g wrote:There are plenty of changes to BOF committees that I would think were a good thing: e.g. having fewer committees and groups (for instance, why do we need a map group when mapping standards are international, or a permanently established rules group rather than just conducting a review of the rules once every few years?), making committees smaller (since they are likely to make decisions more easily), and making better use of technology to make serving on a committee less burdensome (e.g. no more meetings in Birmingham). But I don't see this consultation canvassing ideas like this - though it is so badly written that it's hard to know what is in the mind of its authors.
I find your comments puzzling, since in the paper that was issued, amongst the rationale and intended benefits were:
Review paper wrote:The Board will require a dialogue with a committee prior to the decision being made to establish any group and will expect (i) the need for the group to be justified and (ii) for there to be clear terms of reference. The issue of the cost of such groups will need to be considered in the final decision taken by the Board regarding the establishment of a group.
More effective meetings as there will be a reduction in the number of people involved in each committee or group as advised in the Governance audit. This will enable more efficient use of email and alternate meeting technologies.
