19 Mar
2016
19 Mar
'16
4:18 a.m.
On 18 Mar 2016, at 15:02, Jonathan Robinson jrobinson@afilias.info wrote:
Alan / Andrew,
Lise & I were seeking to be efficient rather that slow things down. The concern is that three parallel reviews produce three outcomes which may not gel together or even contradict one another.
Therefore, it seemed logical to get one (or two as it turns out) reviews completed prior so that the following one/s build on that rather than potentially conflict with it.
Trust that makes sense?
No, sorry, I can’t think of a scenario where reviews in series will result in less overall effort than reviews in parallel. It’s too late anyway; the reviews are already proceeding in parallel.
Alan