Re: [802SEC] Rulling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
G'day Andrew -
On 18 Jul 2010 21:08, "Andrew Myles (amyles)" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
The rule as written is obviously as "clear as mud" given the discussion at
the EC on Friday. That leaves us with the problem of how to interpret it.
One thing we do know is that it has been interpreted many times in the past
to allow multiple recirculations. This is the "status quo". It is possible
this has been done contrary to the written rules.
However, one can easily interpret the written rules to allow multiple
recirculations. In particular, one could interpret the conditions you note
below to have an unwritten "last" before the words "recirculation ballot".
Clearly this has been the interpretation in the past.
Unless there is overwhelming evidence to the contrary, best practice is such
situations of uncertainty is to maintain the status quo until a decision is
made to change the status quo. In this case the status quo is to allow
That said, an activity needs to be started to clarify the rules. I would
advocate that multiple recirculations be allowed because this mechanism
supports the idea of making timely forward progress. However, I would also
advocate that members of the EC given the opportunity to review that the
conditions have been met at the end of the process.
From: email@example.com [mailto:firstname.lastname@example.org] O...
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.