Hi--
Given how extensive the CWT is and that people also have the dreaded Real Life (work, family, other hobbies etc) breathing down their necks, and with Christmas just around the corner, in this case 30 days might be too little time. Besides, I'm not in a huge hurry here, so I won't mind.Is 30 days too short a period?
I'd say we extend the review period at least out beyond Christmas and the New Year, because most people will be pretty busy. I suppose a second round of review with another period will work just fine.As I wrote the process up, I didn't allow for any adjustments. But David has brought up a number of points, and at least some of them may lead to changes that are more than typographic. Should that irregularity be waived, or should we have another evaluation period once we have a first round of comments on this draft?
These things happen, that's why we need the feedback in the first place. I will say that I did get the impression that the CWT has stirred up a bit of excitement, as we haven't really had any major rules rewrites and/or extensions in a long time, and it's easy to get enthusiastic (I know I did in the past over some stuff I've seen other people draft up). I'd actually say the CWT is already in its third draft with the separation of the document to its constituent sections, and now that it's clearly broken down to those, we can start ripping it apart and debating about the pros and cons of various aspects as a community. What we get after that would be the next draft version.I was probably too hasty in nominating the draft for inclusion, since there was not really any time for comment. I think I would be more inclined to sort out these last bits, and then have a revised draft for final approval.
Edi ----------------------- Rodger Thorm wrote:
Would those of you who are actively evaluating the proposed draft of the Combined Weapons Table, or who plan to comment on it before December 15 (the end of the evaluation period) please let me know (email me directly, if you would) so I know who is looking at it and is interested in participating in the feedback. That way, too, I know what the base for consensus is. Is 30 days too short a period? As I wrote the process up, I didn't allow for any adjustments. But David has brought up a number of points, and at least some of them may lead to changes that are more than typographic. Should that irregularity be waived, or should we have another evaluation period once we have a first round of comments on this draft? I was probably too hasty in nominating the draft for inclusion, since there was not really any time for comment. I think I would be more inclined to sort out these last bits, and then have a revised draft for final approval. --Rodger Thorm