[Stoves] Advocacy action: ask the GACC to stop promoting the WBT

[Xavier Brandao]

Dear Ranyee,

Thanks for the quick answer.

/"//In my earlier message, I described how the protocols have already 
been changed and updated from the WBT. So your question about making 
decisions about the WBT doesn’t really reflect the current situation 
since things have already moved beyond that."//
/It is news to me.
Unless I missed something, here is what you said in your previous reply:
/"//We all recognize that there is room to improve, and that is already 
the starting motivation for ongoing work by many people.  There are 
protocol improvements that are in progress and in discussion, which will 
be published as soon as they are complete."/

I have nowhere seen mentioned, in the discussions, on the GACC website, 
or online, that the GACC had "moved beyond the WBT". It is very good to 
hear.

Nevertheless, the WBT 4.2.3 is still on top of the GACC testing protocol 
page:
http://cleancookstoves.org/technology-and-fuels/testing/protocols.html

/"if you’d like more information on how to join that collaboration and 
discussion, please let me know."/
Yes, gladly, I would like to have more information. Sally Seitz, the 
secretary of the TC 285, told me I couldn't join nor receive news from 
the meetings, since France was not on the list of countries. She advised 
me to contact the AFNOR, which I did, but didn't get an answer so far, 
and I expect the process to be (if it is successful) long and bureaucratic.

/"If you’d like to contribute testing data to the RRT, please let me 
know, since more data will help us have a better sense of the sources of 
variation."/
Sorry, I don't have any testing data to contribute to the RRT.

I have a few questions:

  * Is there a document, like a report, which presents and describes the
    Round Robin Testing?
  * What is the goal of the RRT?
  * When did the RRT start, and when do you expect it to finish?
  * Which protocol(s) will be used during that RRT? Which data is gonna
    be compared?
  * "The agreement that the testing centers made when making plans for
    the RRT is that participating centers would not be shared".
    Shouldn't the origin of the testing data be shared? Can we still
    know which organization is coordinating/managing the RRT?
  * When you say /"//protocols have already been changed and updated
    from the WBT"/, which protocols are you talking about?
  * Is the GACC now able to officially declare the WBT has serious
    flaws, and therefore should not be recommended to certify stoves or
    select them for programmatic purposes? This was why I meant by
    "taking a decision about the WBT".


Thanks again and best regards,

Xavier



On 3/13/17 15:11, Ranyee Chiang wrote:
>
> Dear Xavier,
>
> In my earlier message, I described how the protocols have already been 
> changed and updated from the WBT.  So your question about making 
> decisions about the WBT doesn’t really reflect the current situation 
> since things have already moved beyond that.  The duration of the ISO 
> process which has updated procedures is hard to predict, but the lab 
> testing protocol has already passed one round of voting and it will be 
> up for another round of voting within the next week or so.  After we 
> know the results of that voting, we will know whether it is ready to 
> publish or if there needs to be additional modification.  People have 
> been working on it continuously over the last few years through the 
> ISO Technical Committee 285 Working Groups to resolve longstanding 
> issues and if you’d like more information on how to join that 
> collaboration and discussion, please let me know.
>
> I do know that the ETHOS organizers plan to post the presentations 
> from the conference, but I’m not sure about their timeline. The budget 
> for the RRT was only to ship stoves and fuels to testing centers, and 
> the rest was based on volunteer contributions from the participating 
> testing centers.  The agreement that the testing centers made when 
> making plans for the RRT is that participating centers would not be 
> shared, so that people would feel comfortable joining this learning 
> opportunity.  Our next steps with the Round Robin Testing are to talk 
> with participating testing centers one-on-one, since this was an 
> exercise designed to help participating centers improve their 
> efforts.  If you’d like to contribute testing data to the RRT, please 
> let me know, since more data will help us have a better sense of the 
> sources of variation.
>
> Best regards,
>
> Ranyee
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.bioenergylists.org/pipermail/stoves_lists.bioenergylists.org/attachments/20170314/9c8207c0/attachment.html>