Discussion of Committees and Delegation Policy

= This Page is an Archive of an old discussion - June 11th 2010 = Discuss Committees and Delegation Policy here.

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