On 5/19/14, 21:56 , John Santos wrote:
On Mon, 19 May 2014, ARIN wrote:
Recommended Draft Policy ARIN-2014-12
Anti-hijack Policy
11.7 Resource Allocation Guidelines
[...]
If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by
the minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
their experimental documentation should have clearly described and
justified why this is required.
Maybe I'm being overly pedantic, but I had trouble parsing this
sentence. At first I thought it was missing the direct object
or there was a strange shift of tenses, then I realized it does
parse, but is awkward.
Missing direct object: "... their experimental documentation should have
clearly described and justified *REASONS* (or some other equivalent word)
why this is required."
I.E. insert an noun to fix it.
Tense shift: "... their experimental documentation should [have] clearly
describe[d] and justif*y*[ied] why this is required."
I.E. strike the past tense in brackets, making the whole thing present
tense, to make it clearer.
Awkward, confusing reading: "... their experimental documentation should
have (that is, when it was submitted) clearly described (past tense) and
justified (past tense) why this is (present tense) required.
I.E. live with it, but go "Huh? What does this mean?" when ever someone
reads it.
Unless this is the standard way lawyers express such things, which
would go a long way to explaining why no one understands them :-)
The sentence you have a problem with is currently in the NRPM and not
relevant to the problem statement or part of the text being changed by
this Recommended Draft Policy. Previous emails in the thread from when
this was a Draft Policy have a red-lined version of text showing both
the original text and the changes proposed by this policy.
That being said, if the community thinks making additional changes like
you suggest will improve the overall clarity of this policy, then we
probably should take care of this.
In looking at the sentence in question; I think the "have" in the
sentence is extraneous, and can deleted. Then changing "this" to "a
larger allocation" and the tense changes you suggest, results in;
If an organization requires more resource than stipulated by the
minimum allocation sizes in force at the time of their request,
their experimental documentation should clearly describe and
justify why a larger allocation is required.
Does that parse better? Does that represent the original intent?
However, I need to know what the rest of the community thinks.
Is this something we should clean up now or is the intent of the
original text clear enough without any changes?
If you believe the change is necessary, in your opinion is this a minor
editorial change that the AC could make while going from Recommended
Draft Policy to Last Call?
Thanks.
--
================================================
David Farmer Email: [email protected]
Office of Information Technology
University of Minnesota
2218 University Ave SE Phone: 1-612-626-0815
Minneapolis, MN 55414-3029 Cell: 1-612-812-9952
================================================
_______________________________________________
PPML
You are receiving this message because you are subscribed to
the ARIN Public Policy Mailing List ([email protected]).
Unsubscribe or manage your mailing list subscription at:
http://lists.arin.net/mailman/listinfo/arin-ppml
Please contact [email protected] if you experience any issues.
