John B. Reynolds wrote:
> 5.11 Further Review of Changes
>
> Whenever a proposal has been changed as a result of
> the preceding processes, any changes resulting from
> such processes shall be republished on the DNSO
> website and subject to review under the prior
> provisions of this section.
>
>My concern is that this could pave the way for repeated invocations of 5.8
>as a filibuster tactic.
Fair point. A couple of thoughts. You only get the "preceding processes"
if there has been a change in the policy, so if the Research Committee
disagrees with the concerns and keeps the draft the same, this provision
cannot be invoked. So at some point, the policy will become fixed, and
this will no longer apply.
I know there's been a previous discussion about whether you draft rules
tightly (expecting abuse and trying to prevent it up front) or loosely
(allowing flexibility, seeing what happens, and amending the rules later
if they're abused). This looks like a place where the latter approach was
taken.
In any event, the language you pointed out could be clearer. I'd be
interested in thoughts about how it could be corrected and how to balance
the concerns noted above.
-- Bret
