Nature of Rule Interpretation

Our friend is still around, e-mailing Brett, Bill and me.

Before things blow up again, can I explain the nature of the rule clarification process so that nobody thinks the Tech Committee is trying to do anything naughty.

You can design anything you like. If your are doubtful about whether it is legal, you can asdk for a ruling. To do this you must tell the Tech Committee reasonably accurartely what you are doing. The Tech Committe will rule on your request on the rule as it exists - it will not attempt to change the rule, mererly interpret it. Obviously there wil be occasions where the rule is genuinely ambiguous. In such cases the guiding rule is that anything that is not specifically restricted or forbidden is permitted.

The effect of an interpretation is that it effectively becomes part of the rule. The Tech Committee anticipates that from time to time it will propose to the members 'tidy up’asmendmernts to the rule. It is open to the members to accept these. Obviously, if people seriously object to an interpretation, they can vote for a rule change.

Now the negative side: it is not the Terch Committe’s job to go up ther highways and byways looking under hedgerows for problems to solve or frogs to kiss. It will respond to specific requests. If you think you have a problem, it is up to you to make the request. The Tech Committee will not obstruct you in ths and may well asssist if you have difficulty in formulating your request.

I hope this dispels sdome of thec cloud of doom that has been floating over this forum for the last few days.


… somehow I feel like I’ve played a part in stirring up hornets … I don’t think of engaged in any adhominum public remarks (if I have, apologies) … and trust me the design processes I’ve engaged in are NOT intended as excercices in f.u. … they should be taken for what they are, experimentations, puzzles solving, and mind stretchers … as for that unfortunate “The Footy is Dead” thread … well, the intent was to bring discussion to the 12 inch loa spirit and blah blah blah and … well … um … perhaps I should have kept my mouth shut …

( … as a mea culpa … some art theorist (a Marxist I believe) says ‘all great art is defined by its limitations’ … architects work within a program … sculptors work with the block of stone they’re given, musicians work with the limitations of their instrument, boat designers work within a rule … the interesting ones explore the outer reaches of their imposed limits … they are generally the ones we remember … Project Blue Sky, either good or bad, is really an excercise in the same … mea culpa over … )

So, yes Angus, I would like help in formulating a proper rules interpretation request … first for the Blue Sky Skiff … never having done this before, point me in the direction of a template or some such that to assist in the formulation … many thx