One can circulate one's proposal to colleagues within the professional community for review and comments before submission for review of the committee. I have helped many with proposals before they are officially submitted. There are members of the committee that have requested comments on their proposals before formal submission.

Proposals are not subjective if they are the product of a reliable methodology. Of course, as you point out, there are proposals that have to be assessed on a subjective basis. That is part of the consensus process. Not every proposal is strictly objective. Yes, the discussion can be enlightening. I sometimes change my vote based on an eloquent justification by members with differing experience with investigations.

Sometimes I vote against because the discussion revolved around a scientifically unreliable basis, ignorance, a lack of consideration of all the trade offs associated with the change, or the change does not meet with the objectives (sometimes subjective or ill-defined objectives) of the document or the perceived audience. In the end, this document cannot become the single source for "all things fire investigation." It has essential elements, such as the application of the Scientific Method, but we may have crossed the line in the content exceeding the value of the document.

We may not need a bigger/better document, we may need to have a well-educated professional community. Given the complexity of the subject of the combustion and fire sciences and the state of affairs currently, we have our work cut out for us.

Douglas J. Carpenter, MScFPE, CFEI, PE, FSFPE
Vice President & Principal Engineer
Combustion Science & Engineering, Inc.
8940 Old Annapolis Road, Suite L
Columbia, MD 21045
(410) 884-3266
(410) 884-3267 (fax)
www.csefire.com