[CCWG-ACCT] CCWG - Recommendation 8 - Final draft version for legal review - co-chair approval requested
gregshatanipc at gmail.com
Sun Jan 31 16:29:57 UTC 2016
I don't think capacity is the issue.
I think it's critical that we restrict the Ombudsman (which I always took
to refer to the function rather than the person(s) filling it) to the
defined roles outlined by Chris LaHatte in his recent email.
If we want an office that goes beyond those roles, we'll need to call it
something else and staff it accordingly.
On Sunday, January 31, 2016, Bruce Tonkin <Bruce.Tonkin at melbourneit.com.au>
> Hello All,
> In terms of this statement:
> “Concern was raised that the Ombudsman is not sufficiently equipped and
> knowledgeable to do substantive evaluation. It is also suggested that an
> independent party, such as the Ombudsman, provide an initial assessment to
> the Board as to the merit of any and all Reconsideration Requests. “
> It is worth considering that the Ombudsman is a function rather than just
> a single person. At the moment there is more than one person involved in
> providing the Ombudsman function. In addition to Chris LaHatte, Herb Waye
> has also provide adjunct services.
> I suggest using the text "Ombudsman Function" where references are made to
> the Ombudsman in the CCWG report.
> It is possible in future that we increase the number of people and skills
> available in the Ombudsman Function to meet the needs specified in the CCWG
> proposal, and as a result of further improvements resulting from work
> stream 2.
> Bruce Tonkin
> Accountability-Cross-Community mailing list
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Accountability-Cross-Community