I have one more thing to say on this case, which is that I apologize.
I've been thinking about the meeting this week (and a message from
another participant triggered this consideration), and the conversations
that have taken place here, and I have realized that I may have failed
in my duty as PSARC chair to separate my personal opinion on the case's
completeness/readiness, from the obligatory objective evaluation of
whether or not the case had converged. (I.e. in my mind the issues
raised had been satisfied, but looking back I'm not sure I gave
opportunity for other participants to reach the same conclusion.)
What possibly should have occurred, is that I should have realized that
there was still active discussion on this topic, and declared the case
not-converged yet and either let it run or asked for more time.
If anyone has been offended or otherwise upset by this, then I sincerely
apologize. I promise to try to be more cognizant of the necessity of
separating these two things (my subjective opinions on the issues at
hand, versus an objective judgment of case convergence) in the future.
That said, I don't think it is fair to penalize the project team for my
error here, and I really do believe that that the case should be closed
approved now. Certainly no other members asked for more time at the
meeting, so I suspect moving forward is not an unreasonable course of
action from this point on.
Again, sorry.
- Garrett
