Committees and Delegation Policy/Discussion

= This Page is an Archive of an old discussion - June 11th 2010 = Original page text - we should rework this into sections like 'rationale', 'examples', etc. [This is Jonathan's text - all those "shoulds" are his opinions. Discussion at Discussion of Committees and Delegation Policy.]

This memo is intended as a start on a policy on how the BioPAX working group would parcel out work and delegate authority. (I'll usually just say "the group" instead of "the BioPAX working group".)

On this page I'll talk about transparency and accountability, as principles to be followed whenever the group asks an individual or a committee to do anything for it. The page Tasks and Decisions suggests possible tasks or roles that the group might assign to individuals or committees.

The purpose of BioPAX is to help advance scientific understanding by facilitating the communication and use of biological pathway information by scientists. To be effective in creating a broadly used exchange format, the group needs to be both inclusive and efficient. We have established inclusiveness through outreach and by practicing an open consensus-based decision-making process. Ideally, all decisions of any importance would be made by the group at scheduled meetings. Making all decisions as a group is transparent and fair, but potentially inefficient. A good practice, which we have often followed, is to name individuals or committees to prepare recommendations which are then presented to the group for endorsement. Most issues will have been worked out ahead of time in committee and/or on line and won't need much discussion time at a meeting.

Delegating authority must be treated differently from delegating responsibility. Delegation of authority should be avoided since it makes the governance process less transparent and inclusive. However, when responsibility for work is delegated, it can be difficult for individuals doing the work to be effective unless they are granted some ability to use discretion without waiting for a group meeting. Examples of such time-limited situations include decisions about article publication processes and workshop programs.

I recommend that all delegation be explicit and limited. No one should be able to act or speak on behalf of the working group without its express approval. The bounds on the delegated authority should be made clear, and anyone who has received authority can be held accountable by the group. In particular it is important that those in a position of trust report to the group on what they're doing.

For example, if a grant is offered to the BioPAX working group, the group must approve acceptance of the grant and any plans for the use of the funds. (Of course grants for other purposes that happen to include support for work on BioPAX would not be subject to this rule.) As the money is spent there should be reports (by which I don't necessarily mean anything formal) from that grant's oversight committee on how it's being spent, and changes in budget or direction need to be vetted.

(If in the future we ever incorporate, we'll be able to receive grants directly and the need and structure for accountability will be much more obvious.)

Similarly, if a committee is formed to organize a meeting or set agenda, that committee needs to be approved by the group and its process for setting the agenda needs to be approved and guided by the group. I'm not suggesting the establishment of paperwork or bureaucracy - just trying to set some common sense expectations for some simple communications.

-

Jonathan wrote this in response to interchanges with Gary Bader and Peter Karp regarding the notion of a BioPAX executive committee. Gary had written on the BioPAX Development Process Goals page that there was an executive committee; I asked who was on it and how its membership was determined; Gary suggested I draft something on the subject. After thinking it over I couldn't think of a good reason to have an executive committee at all, although I'm happy to learn more about how the group has been run in the past and what kinds of process has worked. In any case, this policy proposal is the product of this exchange.

My suggestion here is merely to put the group squarely in charge, while allowing delegation (subject to accountability requirements). I get the sense that this is a departure from past practice, but I'm having a difficult time figuring out exactly how or why, other than that it was only recently that participation in decision making was opened up to the group. If this is inappropriate or too radical, please explain why on this page.

Gary has suggested that technical (or "scientific") decision making should be inclusive of a large group, while non-technical issues (sometimes called "administrative" but actually including important decisions such as meeting schedules and grant administration) should be decided by an "executive committee". I am of the opinion that the two concerns can't be separated. Anyone who gets involved does so because they want the project to succeed, not because they are particularly interested in the technical issues. They will be interested (even if only by delegation) in all activities necessary to success, whether technical or not. The goal after all is to use pathway information, and making a good specification and ensuring that the project is well run are just two different means to that end.

-Jonathan