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.]
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