On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Alan Burlison wrote: > Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > >>> As facilitators; the role as currently used is a communication conduit, >>> adding grant editing would be an extension that may or may not be >>> a good thing. >> >> I am concerned about this as well. This seems like a pretty big change >> to the facilitation role, and removes oversite from the OGB. I don't think >> we (the OGB) want that, do we? Have facilitators asked for this? Would >> they all fully understand the repercussions for their actions? There >> would be no oversite like there is now. It would require action on >> the OGB after the fact to review (which is easy to put off, and then >> never actually do...) > > There would be oversight because the grants would be visible. > > Is there any evidence to suggest that the Facilitators wouldn't carry out > their duties in a diligent fashion?
I don't expect any malicious behaviour, if that is what you are asking, but I would certainly expect facilitators not being familiar with the process, seeing they can just 'do it' in Auth and the OGB getting careless about checking the logs (because it would be pull vs current push). That's a common user interface type problem and I don't think is too difficult to imagine happenning. Valerie -- Valerie Fenwick, http://blogs.sun.com/bubbva/ @bubbva Solaris Security Technologies, Developer, Sun Microsystems, Inc. 17 Network Circle, Menlo Park, CA, 94025.
