Reviewing all the posts that have been made, I feel there is nothing new that can be added. In fact, our original proposal if carefully read, addresses the points raised subsequently in opposition to it. Our proposal is based on an exceptionally thorough statistical analysis of the NRCS pedon data base and on the published literature, from the earliest to the most recent publications on the topic.
At this point it would be worthwhile for a neutral party (or individuals) to dispassionately summarize the pros and cons of each approach (V and Avv) in order to more effectively consider the issue. The outcome of this decision has implications that go beyond the immediate question, including communication with those outside the soil survey community.
It is also clear that the system to handle proposals such as these needs improvement. For example, the requirements for proposals and the process by which they are evaluated need to be clearly defined. The evaluation needs to occur expeditiously, with review open to comment and respectful, collegial discussion. It seems reasonable that the final decision might lie with a council of experts. If we can achieve improvement in the system, then the countless hours spent on this particular issue will be considered a better investment.
