get CanberraUAV endorsement for Safety Team activities

[monkeypants]

We have conversational concensus for our activities with a number of CanberraUAV members.

I think we need a more "official" mandate. Suggest this approach:

1. to have an "on the agenda" discussion on mumble and/or the public list, where everyone has clearly had an opportunity to voice their opinion about what we are doing.
2. Create a "CanberraUAV Safety Team 2014/15 - Terms Of Reference" document (single page) that has broad consensus from the open discussion.
3. Seek "official endorsement" from the CanberraUAV committee, of the TOR document.
4. Create the web page (public web page - about the safety team #2), publically anounce it to the mailing list (and possibly DIY Drones, etc)

[monkeypants]

Following up from Last night's Mumble Meeting, it was observed:

I clarified the safety group email - Steve is vocally in support but others are cynical. Basically
we have a green light to move forward as intended, but we need to put some effort into
selling the implementation.

Note: Booklet 5 of the CASA SMS resource kit has the introductory Blurb:

Good communication is vital for an effective SMS. If the boss keeps
everyone in the loop on safety issues, and in turn, listens to what
employees have to say, the SMS will be much more effective. Equally,
part of an effective SMS is ensuring employees have the skills and
knowledge they need. Booklet 5 (1.87MB) therefore focuses on the
'safety training and promotion' part of an effective SMS.

[http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101005]

I guess when we figure out how to deal with the cynicism, we can document it in our own "Training and Promotion Strategy" that's part of our SMS.

As a self-organising meritocracy, we don't have a "boss". But we do need a communication strategy that:

• keeps everyone in the loop
• listens to what everyone has to say

We also need to ensures that everyone has skills and knowledge they need.

These things should be addressed in the Safety Team's TOR.

[gmorph]

I don't recall anyone being cynical?

On 21 October 2014 16:18, Chris Gough notifications@github.com wrote:

Following up from Last night's Mumble Meeting, it was observed:

I clarified the safety group email - Steve is vocally in support but
others are cynical. Basically
we have a green light to move forward as intended, but we need to put some
effort into
selling the implementation.

Note: Booklet 5 of the CASA SMS resource kit has the introductory Blurb:

Good communication is vital for an effective SMS. If the boss keeps
everyone in the loop on safety issues, and in turn, listens to what
employees have to say, the SMS will be much more effective. Equally,
part of an effective SMS is ensuring employees have the skills and
knowledge they need. Booklet 5 (1.87MB) therefore focuses on the
'safety training and promotion' part of an effective SMS.

[http://www.casa.gov.au/scripts/nc.dll?WCMS:STANDARD::pc=PC_101005]

I guess when we figure out how to deal with the cynicism, we can document
it in our own "Training and Promotion Strategy" that's part of our SMS.

As a self-organising meritocracy, we don't have a "boss". But we do need a
communication strategy that:

• keeps everyone in the loop
• listens to what everyone has to say

We also need to ensures that everyone has skills and knowledge they need.

These things should be addressed in the Safety Team's TOR.

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment).

Thanks

Grant

[monkeypants]

Hi Grant,

Thanks for discovering those tickets/that repo. I wasn't going to announce them until there was more to look at.

I wasn't there, that was relayed to me. In hindsight I should have moderated the language. Maybe "skeptical" or "perhaps not fully convinced" would have been more diplomatic ways of expressing the need to socialise safety management.

Do you think we already have a broad consensus?

[gmorph]

So as far as I recall it was only Tridge asking why have a separate mailing
list from the existing private mailing list. Patto put forward some good
points for it and Tridge was happy. That was my take on it.

Yeah, broad consensus from what I observed.

On 22 October 2014 08:27, Chris Gough notifications@github.com wrote:

Hi Grant,

Thanks for discovering those tickets/that repo. I wasn't going to announce
them until there was more to look at.

I wasn't there, that was relayed to me. In hindsight I should have
moderated the language. Maybe "skeptical" or "perhaps not fully convinced"
would have been more diplomatic ways of expressing the need to socialise
safety management.

Do you think we already have a broad consensus?

—
Reply to this email directly or view it on GitHub
#6 (comment).

Thanks

Grant

[monkeypants]

The separate private mailing list is a substitute (quick hack) for a quasi-confidential reporting feature.

http://www.skybrary.aero/index.php/Confidential_Reporting

For detailed guidance on requirements, see Appendix 5 to Chapter 5 "VOLUNTARY AND CONFIDENTIAL REPORTING SYSTEMS", IACO Safety Management Manual (SMM) ISBN 978-92-9249-214-4.

http://www.icao.int/safety/SafetyManagement/Documents/Doc.9859.3rd%20Edition.alltext.en.pdf