John Beck wrote: > Jim> I'd like to suggest to the OGB that we allow these 4 grants in because > Jim> they had been in the queue but were delayed due to the bug in poll and > Jim> we also need to consider that the website has had very serious issues > Jim> the last week and a half (in fact, we've never had website issues as bad > Jim> as this) which has stressed everything. In other words, since the OGB > Jim> decided to not stick to the original deadline due to the poll bug, now > Jim> things are backed up and exacerbated even further by the infrastructure > Jim> problems with the site. I'm not saying we should let in /new/ grants, but > Jim> I think we should finalize the grants that were already in the queue. > > Simon> It's plausibly against the current Constitution, so it depends on how > Simon> people feel about it. Personally I would say that since the process > Simon> was all followed and they are simply missing from the electronic > Simon> representation of the list and not from the OGB's communications > Simon> traffic they could be added in. > > Yes, I thought we all agreed that grant extensions, especially those caused > by the bug in the database and those where the Right Thing had happened on > time but the update was delayed, be allowed. At any rate, I am OK with this. >
Can we finalize this? Jim -- http://blogs.sun.com/jimgris/
