So to follow up on Greg's 'How to write a rule' thread, I am a firm believer in the concept of relying 100% on the 'if it doesn't say you can, then you can't' philosophy of the GCR. A brief looksie shows that it won't be hard to remove all of the "you can't do this" wording while still maintaining the integrity of the rule - as long as you live and die by the IIDSYCTYC foundation, which would be clearly spelled out in the intent section.

My question for you all lies in the Glossary. The shifter lever/knob debate brings me here. If a rule points to a 'part' (like a shift lever, or shift knob) should it be a requirment that that 'part' be defined in the glossary? It would to be a logical yes...but we don't want to GROW the GCR, we want to simplfy it - and hopefully shrink it. I think we can be the model ruleset for all of the SCCA. At what point do we rely on industry accepted terminology - if at all? Should the ITCS have it's own specific sub-glossary?

Comments are welcome on any and all points of this post. This whole thing may be a dumb idea - just provide some feedback.