* Gert Doering
(but indeed, accepting 2012-06 and stalling 2012-03 would make 2012-03 somewhat superfluous).
Well, 2012-03 seeks to increase the need period for transfers of allocations to two years, while 2012-06 would only increase that period to one year. Therefore, if the WG wants the need period for transfers to increase to two years, 2012-03 is not superfluous at all (irrespective of the status of 2012-06). You could argue that by passing 2012-06 first, 2012-03 would be easier to pass, as it would then be a smaller change policy (+12 months rather than +21 months). On the other hand, you could also argue that 2012-06 undermines the rationale for 2012-03 - if the WG's opinion is that 12 months (but not 3 months) is a sufficiently long need period for transfers. It is my understanding that if both 2012-03 and 2012-06 passes (in that order), the change made by 2012-06 to section 5.0 would not actually change any actively used policy. There is still a small benefit to doing so anyway, in my opinion, as it would remove four paragraphs of defunct policy text. -- Tore Anderson Redpill Linpro AS - http://www.redpill-linpro.com