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
--
_______________________________________________
opensolaris-discuss mailing list
opensolaris-discuss@opensolaris.org
