Hello Thom!

 WD>> there are allways cases which are not completely defined by the policies
 WD>> and where the *C in charge has to interpret the written policy or decide
 WD>> completely on his/her own.

 TL> Correct, and that's always an area that demands very careful scrutiny.

Indeed. On the one side, there should be means to get rid of a *C badly
doing wrong. On the other side, an *C needs enough elbow room. If he is so
narrowed that he cannot do wrong, he as well cannot do good.

 WD>> Not directly but via their NCs, RCs and ZCs.

 TL> I wish it were that direct....

That depends.

 TL> but the NC's have no direct path to the RCs...

Here the nodes and the NCs have according to our Regional Policy.

 TL> so it's not always that easy for a lower level to rectify a problem at a
 TL> higher level...and I believe that's by intent.

As I told above. It should not be too easy to act against some *C, but as
well not too difficult. As it is now, in general it works well.

greetings, Werner

--- GED 3.0.1-dam3