On Thu, 15 Jun 2006, Anthony Towns wrote: > On Wed, Jun 14, 2006 at 05:51:02PM -0700, Don Armstrong wrote: > > I think that's the very case where we need the time to examine the > > private vetting process, since there may be no external communication > > before the announcement. > > Why wouldn't we just have a public vetting process that takes two weeks or > more anyway? There are some cases where it makes sense to approve funds > discretely (for legal issues, or in consideration of people's personal > situation), but for vetting organisations, what's the point in rushing > it or doing it behind closed doors?
I don't see the point either; I agree that it should be public, and should be a process that takes enough time to properly consider the organization in question. If the process satisfied these criteria I suppose it would be sufficient to make the decision at the end of the process; if it was at all in doubt, DDs at that point should have enough information to take action if necesary. [If not, there's little that the constitution can do to protect us from our own laziness.] Don Armstrong -- There are two types of people in this world, good and bad. The good sleep better, but the bad seem to enjoy the waking hours much more. -- Woody Allen http://www.donarmstrong.com http://rzlab.ucr.edu -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
