James Carlson wrote: > Alan Burlison writes: >> OGB/2007/001 requires that you get the approval of both a community >> group (2.7) *and* the OGB (2.2) which seems like overkill. > > That would be overkill, if that's what it said. > > Instead, it says that the community groups provide the OGB with the > required information about the project, and then the OGB announces the > project and allocates resources -- as described in 2.3 and 2.4. It > doesn't say that the OGB needs to "approve" the project. > > I agree that it seems slightly heavier and less obvious than it should > be. The role described in 2.3 and 2.4 is roughly equivalent to what > an RTI advocate does: making sure that the required work has actually > been done by someone else. I think it'd be entirely reasonable to > propose that this be a role that one or two people play on behalf of > the OGB, rather than having the entire board do this for every > project.
I'm glad to hear that, but that certainly isn't the way OGB/2007/001 reads on a first (or even second, or third) pass - if that is the intention it needs to be clearly stated. I think the document needs significant work to make it clearer, for example: "2.3 The OGB, acting as Project Herald, upon receipt of the information described in 2.2 in acceptable form, shall cause to be announced publicly, via a channel dedicated to the purpose, the instantiation of the Project. The announcement must include substantially all of the information described in 2.2." Read more like a credit agreement than a community-friendly document. -- Alan Burlison --
