Nov '12 Prelim Minutes & Tech Bulletin

[erlrich]

Thanks Earl.

I see STAC cleared up the STCS rules regarding aero devices, which was part of my request, including definition for splitters. Awesome.

Question for the ITAC, I asked for an IT rules intrepration as well and all I got was "Thank you for your letter. The rule is correct as written." I am really confused since I was being as specific as i could with my question(s), or so I thought.

Yeah, which is kinda funny, as the response to my request was more verbose than I would have expected. Not that I'm complaining mind you (although I did think the reply made it sound like I was asking them to class MY car in STL...), but just seemed a little out of character.

[Greg Amy]

You're welcome...

We thought it was a reasonable request that deserved an explanation. So you got one.

Generally speaking about interpretations, there's disagreements as to whether we should use the committees, CRB, and Fastrack for rules clarifications/interpretations. Some say we should use the GCR-defined process, others counter that process is for trying to gain first-mover advantage on a competitive idea/interpretation. I infer that the current hierarchy leans toward "give 'em a reasonable answer, unless it appears someone's trying to twist a rule around and get us to effectively change a reg".