Garrett D'Amore writes: > John Plocher wrote: > > Somewhere in all this my original idea of having this board > > produce a set of editorial guidelines seems to have gotten > > completely lost, and replaced with a brute force 100% review > > requirement. > > > > Rather than creating guidelines for the effective delegation > > of authority and responsibility, we seem to be centralizing it. > > > > This feels wrong. > > > > I've been silent on the issue until now, but I tend to agree with you. > I do think the idea of a committee to handle appeals is not a bad idea, > although at some level that could just be another of the OGB duties > (though I can understand that the OGB might decide to appoint a separate > group of individuals with more domain expertise to perform the task.) > > I formally propose to the OGB that it recast the duties of the committee > so that it writes such guidelines, and then relegate itself (meaning the > committee) to an appeals board only.
I think that'd be a fairly reasonable and obvious thing for that committee to do ... once it meets. -- James Carlson, Solaris Networking <james.d.carlson at sun.com> Sun Microsystems / 35 Network Drive 71.232W Vox +1 781 442 2084 MS UBUR02-212 / Burlington MA 01803-2757 42.496N Fax +1 781 442 1677
