[Stoves] Differences in stove testing

Wed Feb 15 17:27:45 CST 2017

Hi Ranyee,

I won’t disagree with you in public at this time, and indeed I only posted about the IWA in an attempt to get Ron to stop using the success of the IWA as a reason not to revisit it. I am in favor of evolution, not freezing, and the main point was that one doesn’t shut down discussion simply by saying 90 people agreed with something, when in fact they did not jointly develop the document as they are doing now.

I do distinctly remember that we were told, during the development of the IWA draft, that details and international engagement was not critical because we were going to have a meeting (in The Hague) where people could provide input and updates. I believe you were not able to join those prep calls— because you were not yet hired, I think. The draft was developed *entirely*, not mostly, by experts from the US. Since I was living in China at the time, I offered to engage with Chinese colleagues for comment, and I was actively discouraged from doing so because “it would delay the process." My comments on some of the process at this time were communicated to Sumi and Radha by e-mail, as well as (what I hope was) constructive suggestions to John for improvement.

When we arrived in The Hague, we were told that we could not edit the document substantively, but only provide resolutions and clarifying comments. I remember this primarily because I was furious at the bait-and-switch, which we learned about only at dinner on the day of arrival. Resolutions and clarifying comments were, indeed, worked on during the meeting.

I am not trying to blame anyone— I believe that we all suffered from a lack of experience with ISO procedures. Nevertheless, the process did have some irregularities, and it is good that we are engaging in a more open process now.

With best regards,

Tami

On Feb 14, 2017, at 9:36 PM, Ranyee Chiang <rchiang at cleancookstoves.org<mailto:rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>> wrote:

Dear all,
The IWA meeting in the Hague was now 5 year ago, so I can see that it would be difficult to remember exactly what happened.  The issue of who provided input into the IWA is an important one, so I think it is important to correct misrepresentations of what happened.  During the IWA meeting, all the participants from about 20 countries went through the entire IWA draft line by line, word by word.  There were opportunities for people to exclude the Tiers at that time, but that was not raised by any of the participants.  The participants also developed resolutions which were reviewed and approved by all the participants at the end of the meeting.  The draft of the IWA was developed by mostly experts from the US.  There were also 3 webinars prior to the IWA meeting in the Hague to collect and integrate input from a wide group of stakeholders.  And then of course, during the IWA, participants were welcome to and did comment on every single part of the IWA.
It is still true that the current ISO process has more thorough than the IWA, but the process was not as Tami described in her e-mail.
Best regards,
Ranyee

From: "Bond, Tami C" <yark at illinois.edu<mailto:yark at illinois.edu>>
Date: February 13, 2017 at 11:41:27 PM EST
To: "Ronal W. Larson" <rongretlarson at comcast.net<mailto:rongretlarson at comcast.net>>
Cc: Discussion of biomass <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
Subject: Re: [Stoves] Differences in stove testing
Reply-To: Discussion of biomass cooking stoves <stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>>
Hi Ron,
I so much appreciate your feedback!

To be clear, I am not looking for other metrics— some have already been proposed in WG1— although your discussions will likely be fruitful and possibly taken up later. I am ONLY, at this time, looking for precedents for defining an energy efficiency or thermal efficiency in the way that has been previously described, with a subtraction in the denominator. Other questions may come later; I believe it’s wise to take one thing at a time— focus helps.

I leave the question of Tiers for further discussion on this list. It is not under discussion (within WG1) at this time, although perhaps it will come later.

Since you were not in The Hague to witness the process of the IWA, I suggest that perhaps you might not want to lean on it as support. No opportunities were offered to modify the IWA document, but only to provide resolutions preceding it. Therefore, even if the assembled company had wished to exclude the Tiers, they would have been unable to do so. The current ISO process has a more thorough discussion, and includes more international stakeholders, than did the IWA, which was largely written only by members of the United States delegation. I encourage you to wait for coming documents before claiming that any particular position is supported by the entire international community.

Regards,

Tami

<image001.jpg><https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=http-3A__www.cleancookstoves.org_&d=DwMFAg&c=8hUWFZcy2Z-Za5rBPlktOQ&r=EfROsFehGP6InILrJ6I2RRu_XfTinnpJMLtzie69RNw&m=LmfKSmYhp06LLVzefAjIi1DcTGV1kKHUCzruN4aBYsc&s=o6FdGLwdnHJmjgiwJms8SPqBHCo0xPvXd5ruMdE5Zvg&e=>

Ranyee Chiang, Ph.D.
Director of Standards, Technology and Fuels
1.202.448.4677<tel:1-202-448-4677>   Skype: ranyee.chiang<skype:ranyee.chiang?add>
rchiang at cleancookstoves.org<mailto:rchiang at cleancookstoves.org>

_______________________________________________
Stoves mailing list

to Send a Message to the list, use the email address
stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org<mailto:stoves at lists.bioenergylists.org>

to UNSUBSCRIBE or Change your List Settings use the web page
http://lists.bioenergylists.org/mailman/listinfo/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org

for more Biomass Cooking Stoves,  News and Information see our web site:
http://stoves.bioenergylists.org/

---------------------------------
T. C. Bond - Nathan M. Newmark Distinguished Professor - John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Fellow 2014
U of Illinois: Civil & Environmental Engineering - Atmospheric Sciences (Affiliate) - Women & Gender in Global Perspectives (Affiliate)
publish.illinois.edu/humanenvironments<http://publish.illinois.edu/humanenvironments>; www.hiwater.org<http://www.hiwater.org>

The only problem worth solving is the problem of how we govern ourselves. — Karl Schroeder, Degrees of Freedom

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170215/fa1b8aa6/attachment.html>