In striking a balance, it might be better to err on the side of
caution.  If the up-front criteria are too strict, no-one will pass
muster, but IMHO that's not likely.  More likely, the criteria will be
too weak, increasing the risk of instability with DNA's coming and going
willy-nilly.

Also, it seems to me that ADNA won't be a good policeman.  Setting aside
the structural concerns, it doesn't have a staff, budget, inclination or
experience for the task.  As with the conflict-of-interest issue,
pushing some issues down into a code-of-practice is really closing the
door after the horse has bolted.

leni.

Simon Hackett wrote:

> >
> >Now we know how much Leni has in the bank! :-) I really don't know
> what to
> >do about this 5 employee thing. I make it 5, everybody says 1, I make
> it 1,
> >people say 5. Could people who care just express their opinion and I
> will
> >go with the majority.
> >
>
> I suggest replacing it by a requirement for a declaration from the
> applicant that they will devote sufficient resources to the task to
> perform
> the required functions properly; Once you approve the DNA's, are you
> planning to audit them, or just to kick their butt if you get
> complaints
> about them? If the latter, then why not forget this stuff, register
> them up
> if they will declare they're serious, and create a procedure for
> warning
> and/or busting DNA's that cause complaints that aren't resolved.
>
> ---
> Simon Hackett, Technical Director, Internode Systems Pty Ltd
> 31 York St [PO Box 284, Rundle Mall], Adelaide, SA 5000 Australia
> Email: simon§internode.com.au  Web: http://www.on.net
> Phone: +61-8-8223-2999          Fax: +61-8-8223-1777