Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: > On Tue, 15 Sep 2009, Alan Burlison wrote: >> Valerie Bubb Fenwick wrote: >>> 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,
Why? The OGB appoints Facilitators and the very essence of their job is to interact with the OGB on governance issues. The OGB is, therefore, directly responsible for the Facilitators. >>> seeing they can just 'do it' in Auth If a Facilitator "just did it" without the proper approvals then I would expect that the OGB would remove the Facilitator. >>> 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. If an OGB Secretary is careless about checking a log (push or pull), can't that very same OGB secretary be careless about adding grants that are posted to a mailing list, too? >> As I said earlier we could send out email reports at regular >> intervals, so if you want push instead of pull we can make that happen. > > > Hi Alan - > > That's not the same. It is very easy to ignore such emails with the > pretense > of "I'll look at that later/tomorrrow/next week/someone else will review > that I'm sure". Where the current model requires the OGB to take action > in a timely manner, or we'll annoy the community asking for the grants. So, if Facilitators are not allowed to do the simple clerical task of adding CCs to their CG Electorates that their fellow CCs voted on, then the OGB is is also prepared to inconvenience the Facilitators further by making them follow up with the OGB secretary if he/she fails to add that CC to the Electorate. Right? It's the same thing. Jim
