A comment by Steve Ludington about
1. I think it's totally unfeasible to have the same group looking at structural and lithologic nomenclature. The interests hardly overlap, and most people having an interest and expertise in one field will be able (and willing) to contribute little to the other. Speaking personally, I am absolutely inappropriate to deal with standards relating to structural geology. 2. The first task, determination of scope, is impossible to come to anything like consensus on. We could argue about that and the factors that might contribute to a solution, from now till doomsday. I think what we need to do is simply choose something that we will develop standards for. The most pressing need is lithology. Let's do that, and take up the rest of this if and when it becomes critical. 3. Ditto with factor no. 4. It doesn't matter if it's 'amenable' to a hierarchy. We need a working hierarchy to proceed with enhanced digital maps. 4. The second goal is to develop "one or more strawman classifications"...several already exist. I think we need to choose something that works. Many of these have been available for peer review for years - and nothing is happening. We are the peers. I am simply concerned that the description in this charter document doesn't seem aimed at timely results. We need results now.
Further discussion of Comments on SLTT Charter Document (this page):
(No comments about this document have been posted.)