John Plocher wrote:
> Rich Teer wrote:
>
>> That's
>> not the intention; the intent is yea or nay proposed changes
>> authored by others (hence my mention of "rubber stamping".
>>
>
> 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.
-- Garrett
