Re: [802SEC] Ruling on the meaning of "Substantially Complete"
On 19 July 2010 22:51, Geoff Thompson <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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
> 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.