Re: [802SEC] Ruling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
Whether the cases I cited break out of the "conditions" still hinges on
interpretation of the one vs many recircs interpretation of the existing P&P
wording - the history isn't there in the P&P, so while it may be interesting
and may help in informing our discussion of how we might choose to change
the P&P in the future, it doesn't help us with interpreting the words now;
they say what they say, and each individual reading them can and will
interpret them as best they can.
Interpreting the words as they stand, if you take the view (as Mat does)
that the extisting wording limits the number of recircs to one, then your
case 2 breaks the "conditions". If you take the view that your case 2
doesn't break the conditions (as you appear to), then you are arguing that
the number of recircs permitted under the existing wording is more than one,
and your claim that any case that requires more than 2 is disallowed is
However, regardless of the above, and regardless of the history lesson, I
believe what Bruce presented to us for approval on Friday was appropriate
and should be supported under our P&P. I believe the fix to the one vs many
recircs debate is to re-word the P&P so that the shchedule is required to
state (as Bruce's did) explicitly how many recircs the WG expects to need,
and if that number of recircs (rather than a fixed max stated in the P&P) is
exceeded then that breaks the conditions (and to deal with the anal
retentives, it should be made clear that less than that number is always
acceptable as long as N is non-zero). With the requirement for a recirc to
last a minimum of 15 days, and taking account of the time inevitably needed
to resolve comments and generate new drafts, there is a natural limit (about
6) to the number of recircs that is possible between any pair of consecutive
plenaries, but I'm sure that the WG Chairs would figure out real soon that
requesting approval of a schedule that involved an excessive number of
recircs was not a good recipe for getting their motion approved.
On 19 July 2010 16:33, Geoff Thompson <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 18/7/10 11:50 PM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
> Your case 2, while ideally giving rise to only 2 further recirculations, in
> reality can give rise to more. Every time changes are made to the document,
> you open the possibility of the editor screwing up or the voting population
> disagreeing with the chosen change. Even your case 1 is not guaranteed to be
> a single recirc case; every time a document is recirculated without change,
> there is an opportunity for the voting population and the WG to spot bugs in
> what had been agreed up to that point, and for the WG to decide that it is a
> smart move to fix them before closing the balloting process. So in reality,
> both of your apparently simple cases have the potential to result in more
> recirculations than you claim for them.
> There is provision for each of the cases that you cite. Specifically, the
> conditional approval has been broken in that the "conditions" have not been
> met. That means that the package has to be reapproved by the EC. That is
> all perfectly appropriate and the way the system is supposed to work.
This email is sent from the 802 Executive Committee email reflector. This list is maintained by Listserv.