[JSR348-134] meta-issue: lack of enforcement creates loopholes, opportunities for misuse Created: 21/Sep/11 Updated: 22/Sep/11 Resolved: 22/Sep/11
|Remaining Estimate:||Not Specified|
|Time Spent:||Not Specified|
|Original Estimate:||Not Specified|
it is lack of clarity that led to years of the EC being wrapped around the axle on Harmony. that's why I feel this is very important:
Process Document review
200 - no enforcement when the EG does not behave openly, and appeals clause provides no defined remedies. Need some penalty if EC finds that EG is not acting openly.
PC> There are many places in this document where we state requirements without explicitly stating penalties for those who fail to meet them. I think this is appropriate, otherwise the document would be much longer, and more legalistic and intimidating than it already is. The ultimate penalty is for the JSR to be voted down. Perhaps we could add some language to the early statements of transparency requirements saying that EC members should take the EG's transparency record into consideration when voting. Please log an issue.
|Comment by pcurran [ 22/Sep/11 ]|
Added this language to section 1.1 EXPERT GROUP TRANSPARENCY
"The EC should take the Expert Group's transparency record into consideration when voting on its JSR."