[ogb-discuss] Re: [osol-discuss] Re: Project Proposal - (what is/was Indiana)

[Alan Burlison]

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
--