All
Rod and I have reviewed the CO principle of Ops document and found quite a few inconsistencies and errors.
We have made some suggested changes and would welcome your comments - see attachment
Some other points to consider:
- In section 2.2 there is reference to 'Member' not 'the Member'. Either this is bad grammar or we need a definition in 1.0
- Section 2.4 - Appeals - needs cross reference?
- Section 4.3 - 'Effective Date' - should this be included in 1.0 Definitions?
- Logo - Will be supplying a logo to for documentation and web display?
- 1st Section - Programme Structure - 9th para background - assume that this is still required
Regards - Bob/Rod
Comments inserted below Tks G ----- Original Message ----- From: "bob blatchford" bob@openforumeurope.org To: board@certifiedopen.com Sent: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 3:19 PM Subject: comments on Op principles
All
Rod and I have reviewed the CO principle of Ops document and found quite a few inconsistencies and errors.
We have made some suggested changes and would welcome your comments - see attachment
Some other points to consider:
- In section 2.2 there is reference to 'Member' not 'the Member'. Either
this is bad grammar or we need a definition in 1.0
Gt - Agree need a definition - suggest " Member describes an organisation who holds a current Certified Open accreditation.
- Section 2.4 - Appeals - needs cross reference?
Gt Agree, will speak to shane - we don't seem to have he whole Governance part covered .Its on the website but not in the Principles??
- Section 4.3 - 'Effective Date' - should this be included in 1.0
Definitions?
Gt Yes, how do you want to set this? Your call since it relates to how payment/invoices raised.
- Logo - Will be supplying a logo to for documentation and web display?
GT yes - where does this fit in?
- 1st Section - Programme Structure - 9th para background - assume that
this is still required
Gt Yes
Regards - Bob/Rod
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Certified Open Board mailing list board@certifiedopen.com https://mail.fsfeurope.org/mailman/listinfo/co-board
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message. Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.503 / Virus Database: 269.15.23/1114 - Release Date: 06/11/2007 20:05
Graham Taylor wrote:
- Section 2.4 - Appeals - needs cross reference?
Gt Agree, will speak to shane - we don't seem to have he whole Governance part covered .Its on the website but not in the Principles??
Four sections of terms and conditions might need updating:
2.4. Appeals. Appeals of any aspect of certifications under this clause 2 shall be handled under the process set out in the Principles. Member hereby acknowledges and agrees that the finality of the appeals process is an important element of the Programme, and that no judicial or other challenges to certifications that are not set out in the Principles shall be available or permissible.
14.2. In the first instance, any individual or organisation will be able to appeal to the program administrators (OFE) for a review of any claim that either a product or service fails to achieve the certified open status it claims or that an individual does not possess the skills they claim.
14.3. In the first instance, the Review Panel will determine if the basis of the complaint has merit; if it does it will be initially investigated at no cost to either party.
14.7. The appeal will be heard by the appeals sub-committee of the Certified Open Council and their decision will be final. The sub-committee may require attendance at the review and may call for additional evidence from both sides in order to reach its conclusion.
Suggest:
2.4. Appeals. Appeals of any aspect of certifications under this clause 2 shall be handled under the process set out in the under section 14.0 of the Certified Open terms and conditions as contained in the Operating Principles. Member hereby acknowledges and agrees that the finality of the appeals process is an important element of the Programme, and that no judicial or other challenges to certifications that are not set out in the Principles shall be available or permissible.
14.2. In the first instance, any individual or organisation will be able to appeal to the program administrators (OFE and FSFE) for formation of a Review Panel to assess any claim that either a product or service fails to achieve the certified open status it claims or that an individual does not possess the skills they claim.
14.3. In the first instance, the Review Panel will determine if the basis of the complaint has merit; if it does it will be initially investigated at no cost to either party.
14.7. The appeal will be heard by an appeals sub-committee of the Certified Open Governance Council and their decision will be final. The sub-committee may require attendance at the review and may call for additional evidence from both sides in order to reach its conclusion.
Please note: I have *not* updated the 2.16 document with these changes. I am currently travelling. If these changes are to be accepted, please update the document and send to board so I can also have a copy.