Re: [soac-mapo] charter and mission

[Evan Leibovitch <evan@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 12 July 2010 11:37, Richard Tindal <richardtindal@xxxxxx> wrote:


> The main difference in your two ideas is that with Evan this decision rests
> with the IO,  whereas with Antony it rests with a relatively large panel.
>

The two are not mutually exclusive; I've already suggested two scenarios
that could involve both an individual and a panel;

1) An advisory board that is consulted by the IO;

2) An appeal process that could overturn an IO's decision to proceed (or
not) with an objection (but would not itself affect the evaluation of the
objection which would still be subject to the existing IO process);

It's my position that having an individual (and a transparent process) would
make the initial step (weeding out trivial or otherwise inapplicable
objections) much faster and less expensive.

- Evan