The nature of this body is consensus-based. Consensus does not mean agreement. Essentially, what we do first of all is to ensure there's a balance of interests. So there are a number of things that we expect the committee to provide.
First of all, everybody who participates has to have a direct interest and has to have expressed an interest. So, if you've been invited to a standards committee, you have to actually be interested in the work of the standards committee of course. You have to demonstrate some ability and to make active contributions, so it is an engagement in the committee process. They have to represent a constituency, so they're not necessarily representing themselves but representing a constituency. Part of our role is to ensure that is happening in that discussion, that technical committee.
What we try to do is of course to get balance in the committee, some national representation, and that the committee is actually manageable—a committee of 500 isn't going to work—so the committee is a decent size.
What we do is in terms of consensus, so we ensure that every viewpoint is recorded and discussed and any point that continues to be strongly held focuses the discussion more on that point until the member who has that point of view is ready to accept, not agree, but accept that their view has been considered and incorporated. So it is really a consensus-building organization and this is why it takes a long time to get this committee to develop the standard.
If everybody is in violent agreement you can get a standard done in two or three meetings, but sometimes it takes two or three years as people go through this process. That might mean bringing other people into the committee for the discussion, bring in that expertise. We manage that process to drive that consensus discussion.