Thread Links Date Links
Thread Prev Thread Next Thread Index Date Prev Date Next Date Index

Re: [802SEC] Ruling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"

If balloting is "substantially complete" then no new valid issues are going to come up (unless there is a breakout of the "conditions"). Therefore, the maximum number of recircs is two as I outlined below unless the WG is trying to prolong the process by putting in unnecessary changes.


On 19/7/10 9:46 AM, Tony Jeffree wrote:
Geoff -

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 arbitrary.

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 < <>> 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.