Shaping our Governance
We invite three kinds of input, and treat all three as legitimate
- Errors and inconsistencies. If a clause contradicts another section, references something that no longer exists, or simply doesn't match how training is actually conducted, tell us. A standards document with an internal contradiction is worse than no standard at all, because it gives a mentor cover to pick whichever version is convenient.
- Suggested edits. If you believe a requirement is solving the wrong problem, missing a scenario, or could be stated more precisely, propose the change. You do not need to be a mentor or a Mentor Evaluator to have a legitimate view on whether a standard makes sense - you need only to have been trained under it and to have thought carefully about why it isn't working.
- Field observations. Not everything worth reporting is a flaw in the document. Sometimes it's a pattern you noticed - a skill that consistently trips divers up for reasons the standard doesn't anticipate, a piece of equipment behaving differently than expected in a specific environment, a gap between what's written and what's genuinely useful in practice. These observations are often the earliest signal that a standard needs to evolve, long before enough incidents accumulate to make the problem undeniable.
None of this bypasses the governance described in the last section of this document - changes to this document still go through review, not around it. But the review process depends entirely on having something worth reviewing, and that starts with divers and mentors willing to say "this isn't quite right" instead of quietly working around it.