Brendler, Beau wrote:
I am inclined to vote "yes," as long as we can count on the "with the possibility of further policy development in the future" part. Otherwise, from what I am able to understand, we might lose the good work that's been done on the RAA up to this point.
Any vote like this appears to require some kind of leap of faith, it seems. As Danny indicates, tougher wording without enforcement is a sham, but the lack of one does not justify the lack of the other. I agree on voting yes, as acknowledged partial progress; while a positive step forward, it still needs significant improvement. It will be up to Us (in the large sense) to ensure that the "possibility" of future policy work becomes a reality. The only way we can count on it is to drive it ourselves. I agree with Danny that the improvements are incomplete, but also agree that this is not a reason to turn down the changes on the table. - Evan