[ExI] time to devour the dog

[spike]

> ...On Behalf Of moulton at moulton.com
> ... 
> So I looked at the actual Copenhagen Accord which is really 
> quite short and can be read fairly quickly...
> http://unfccc.int/resource/docs/2009/cop15/eng/l07.pdf
> 
> It is a quick read.  I suggest everyone read it and make up 
> their own mind. Fred


Thanks Fred.  

In the rocket science biz, when a specification is finalized and signed, the
next task is to create a requirements verification matrix (RVM), which
unambiguously defines how the subcontracting entity or responsible
organization fulfills every requirement to achieve earned value management
milestones in order to get paid.  The engineer first goes thru the document
and finds all the "shalls" for shalls define requirements, which are then
followed by a set of criteria to determine how the requirement fulfillment
is to be verified.  Only shalls are relevant in this step; the term "should"
is an opinion, "must" is a prerequisite for bidding, "will" is a prediction,
but "shall" defines a binding contract requirement.

If I try to create the RVM, it is a short document indeed, and lacks some
critical information.  The first column or my RVM would have something like:

RVM 1.  ...we shall...enhance cooperative action...
RVM 2.  ...developed countries shall...give money to developing countries...
RVM 3.  ...actions (or progress) shall be communicated every two years...
RVM 4.  ...money and improved access shall be provided to developing
countries...
RVM 5.  ...Copenhagen Green Climate Fund shall be established...

The document doesn't say which are the developed countries and which are the
developing countries, but clearly the latter benefits from the nebulous
generosity of the former.  The document doesn't say how a country can get
from the former list to the latter, or what are the criteria for defining
each, or if there is a third category which is a transitioning country, and
if transitioning, which direction they are going.  

RVM 1, enhancing cooperative action carries no units to determine or measure
if cooperative action has been enhanced.  Since this is about governments
working together, which is often frustrating, the unit I would suggest would
be ergs.

RVM 2, how much money, when, to do what, etc.

RVM 3, the least ambiguous requirement, write a report every two years
telling what, if anything, has been accomplished.  RVM 3 doesn't
specifically require that anything actually be accomplished, only that a
report is written about what has or has not been accomplished.  I have seen
these kinds of requirements in real-world RVMs.  They are always the first
and most likely to be fulfilled.

RVM 4, almost a repeat of 2, same questions.

RVM 5, requires only that a fund be established, with no specific definition
of who must contribute what.

If I received this document as a request for proposal, I would no-bid this
job on the basis that the requirements are insufficiently defined,
responsible parties are undefined and the criteria for successful completion
are missing.

Finally, the logic escapes me for calling this kind of meeting in the dead
of winter.  Do they really believe that the planet is on the verge of
meltdown if urgent action is not taken in the next few months?  The whole
notion would sell much better in a sweltering European July than in a
blizzardy December.

My dog is safe.

spike