Hello everyone, Things have been underway to create a Regulations Committee to oversee the 2012 Regulations, which are likely to bring some big changes in their format. At the moment, I've been trying to organize things, though it seems that Vincent Sheu will soon take charge of the process. For the last few days, I've been working on a proposal for the WCA Regulations Committee (WRC). You can view the latest version of it at: [size=200:2okha37b][url=https://raw.github.com/lgarron/wrc-proposal/master/WRC%20Proposal.txt:2okha37b]WRC Proposal.txt[/url:2okha37b][/size:2okha37b] (You can also view all past and future changes [url=https://github.com/lgarron/wrc-proposal/network:2okha37b]here[/url:2okha37b].) Here's the current summary from the proposal: [quote:2okha37b]- The WCA Regulations Committee (WRC) should have three members. - The WRC is responsible for maintaining the following: - - The WCA Regulations - concise, normative rules, - - The WCA Guidelines - detailed suggestions and clarifications for interpreting the Regulations. - - The WCA Scramblers - a set of scrambling programs for official puzzles. - - The WCA Incidents Log - a historical list of all regulation-related incidents. - The WRC should take input from the cubing community in submitting amendments to the WCA. The WCA Board may approve updates to the Regulations and/or Guidelines at any time, although the Regulations should have one major update every year.[/quote:2okha37b] Since this is the beginning of a process that will hopefully make changes to the regulations more open and organized, I'd like to call on the community for feedback about the structure of this proposal. In particular: [list:2okha37b] [*:2okha37b]Do you think it is a good approach? Why or why not?[/*:m:2okha37b] [*:2okha37b]What changes would you suggest to help improve this proposal?[/*:m:2okha37b][/list:u:2okha37b] Vincent himself has some changes he'd like to make (e.g. clarifying the process for amendments), but he and I are very busy this week. Therefore, we'd like to open this up for feedback from the community in the meanwhile.

Lucas, I think you did a great job putting all these info together! Let's hope we will be able to move fast, find the right people and get this going. The proposal is quite comprehensive. My 2 comments at this moment are: - I plead for having a unified scrambling program that will incorporate all WCA puzzles. I really think it will be useful and much more professional. (If I remember correct, Jeremy was working on one.) - I am not yet sure if 3 people is the right number for the WCR? Why not 2 or not 4-5... Anyway, they have to really know very good English. Oh, and one more thing...WCA Delegates should start using more this forum for sharing opinions about the regulations.

[quote="Radu":2z2f4nzv]Lucas, I think you did a great job putting all these info together! Let's hope we will be able to move fast, find the right people and get this going. The proposal is quite comprehensive. [/quote:2z2f4nzv] Thanks, but it's certainly not quite ready. But it's getting there, and I hope Vincent improves it even more. [quote="Radu":2z2f4nzv] - I plead for having a unified scrambling program that will incorporate all WCA puzzles. I really think it will be useful and much more professional. (If I remember correct, Jeremy was working on one.)[/quote:2z2f4nzv] [url=http://www.cubing.net/mark2/:2z2f4nzv]And[/url:2z2f4nzv] [url=http://www.speedsolving.com/forum/showthread.php?33808-Mark-2-Scrambler:2z2f4nzv]me[/url:2z2f4nzv]. This proposal is worded to encourage unified scramblers. (2d4e) [quote="Radu":2z2f4nzv] - I am not yet sure if 3 people is the right number for the WCR? Why not 2 or not 4-5...[/quote:2z2f4nzv] Tyson suggested "2 or 3" initially. This is consistent with the size of the WCA board and the WRC. An earlier version of this proposal had more WRC members, but I've realized that we don't need special position to let people contribute to the WRC. However, we need a concentrated point of contact between the WCA board and the community who can keep things organized. Vincent pointed that 3 members allow for a majority rule in the case of differing opinions. 5 is certainly possible, but here are some points against making the WRC too large (and I think 5 is probably too large): - It would be more difficult for the WRC members to stay in contact with each other and the board. - The WRC does not need to amend the regulations entirely on its own, but it should be *responsible* for the process. This does not need many people. - I'm sure many delegates are familiar with past cases where WCA board members (i.e. Ron and Tyson) have presented conflicting statements to different people. Since the WRC is composed of volunteers using their spare time, having too many members makes it more difficult for all of them to be "on the same page". [quote="Radu":2z2f4nzv]Anyway, they have to really know very good English.[/quote:2z2f4nzv] Yeah, 1d6). Although Ron has put a lot of effort into maintaining the regulations, many people have expressed concerns with the wording used and presentation of some parts of the regulations. If Vincent joins the WRC, I have no doubt he'll make sure the amendments are clearly phrased.

Great work. A few comments and suggestions: 1c) Change "...must be publicly announced." to "...must be announced at the WCA forum." 1d1) How would the WRC ensure that the WCA follows the reguations? 2e) Today, incidents are included in the WCA Delegates' Reports to the WCA Board. What would be the relationship between the Delegates' Reports and the Incidents Log? Is the idea that the Incidents Log would be accessible for the public? I think something like this ought to be added: "The WCA Delegates should initiate and maintain a discussion about the Regulations, Guidelines, Scramblers and Incidents within their regions, and report yearly to the WRC. This to ensure a feedback mechanism that includes the whole cubing community, in particular the non-English-speaking part of it."

[quote="anders":3s9yjtjs]Great work. A few comments and suggestions: 1c) Change "...must be publicly announced." to "...must be announced at the WCA forum."[/quote:3s9yjtjs] I think some things are better left unqualified. The WCA forum is the current way to do this, but if we come up with a better way of doing this, we shouldn't be unnecessarily restricted. (And if we have to start coming up with rules for what's "sufficiently public", that also doesn't help.) [quote="anders":3s9yjtjs] 1d1) How would the WRC ensure that the WCA follows the reguations?[/quote:3s9yjtjs] Not so sure. Right now, their role is mostly to advise the WCA, who currently handles resolutions for incidents. If the issue is internal, I'm not sure what's best to do about it. However, I do have a provision that the WRC is at its own discretion to make incidents public. There should probably be some more independence, as well as checks and balances. [quote="anders":3s9yjtjs] 2e) Today, incidents are included in the WCA Delegates' Reports to the WCA Board. What would be the relationship between the Delegates' Reports and the Incidents Log? Is the idea that the Incidents Log would be accessible for the public?[/quote:3s9yjtjs] Yes, the key point is that it should be a properly maintained public record, so that people can learn more about them. Current WCA announcements about incidents are more of an irregular convention right now. Here's the motivation for keeping the Incidents Log with the WRC: - The Guidelines will have a lot of clarifications. Many of these are grounded in specific details that come about through specific incident resolutions, some of which are very minor. Right now, information about such incidents travels from the WCA board to competitors very informally. - Therefore, the Guidelines should contain any significant references to incidents, which should have more details about the particular case. - Since the Guidelines have to be properly maintained along with the list of incidents, it makes sense to let them be bookkept in the same place. I like the following analogy with the US legal system: - Regulations: the Constitution - Guidelines: specific legislation - Incidents Log: court history If you have any good suggestions for this (e.g. how to make this a shared effort with the IAC), let me know. By the way, what is the current scope of the IAC? As far as I can tell, the IAC is brought in only for exceptional cases. (And one more thing: This proposal is only part of the effort to formalize the structure of the WCA. I would like to see the regulations cover the roles of the Board and the IAC. [And what is a delegate report? Who sees it? What is done with it?] Are there also any parts of the WCA I'm missing?) [quote="anders":3s9yjtjs]I think something like this ought to be added: "The WCA Delegates should initiate and maintain a discussion about the Regulations, Guidelines, Scramblers and Incidents within their regions, and report yearly to the WRC. This to ensure a feedback mechanism that includes the whole cubing community, in particular the non-English-speaking part of it."[/quote:3s9yjtjs] This is a good idea, but the phrasing is a little odd. A yearly report seems very reasonable, though, to make sure that the worldwide community stays involved. This should also be made clear to competitors somehow, so that they have the understanding that they can (and should) bring up any concerns they ever have.

[quote="Lucas":3qhm668o] If you have any good suggestions for this (e.g. how to make this a shared effort with the IAC), let me know. By the way, what is the current scope of the IAC? As far as I can tell, the IAC is brought in only for exceptional cases. [/quote:3qhm668o] The IAC activities are ad-hoc. The IAC initiates its investigations either by a complaint from an individual cuber or by the request of the WCA Board. I am a bit uncertain of how to formalise the IAC within the WCA. Even if the IAC reports to the WCA Board, it must be trusted by the community to be independent, unbiased and being able to handle sensitive and confidential information. The existence of an independent IAC certifies that our community can handle complaints and issues involving any member of our community including both WCA Delegates and even members of the WCA Board. No-one is above the IAC [quote="Lucas":3qhm668o] (And one more thing: This proposal is only part of the effort to formalize the structure of the WCA. I would like to see the regulations cover the roles of the Board and the IAC. [And what is a delegate report? Who sees it? What is done with it?] Are there also any parts of the WCA I'm missing?)[/quote:3qhm668o] I suppose that the reports are only read by the WCA Board and then archived. The WCA Delegate's reports are regulated by 1c1) Reporting to the WCA Board about whether the full WCA regulations were followed during the competition. Reports must be available within one week after the competition. 1c2) Reporting to the WCA Board about the overall course of the competition, and about incidents. Reports must be available within one week after the competition. and I am sure that each delegate interprets this differently. We had a discussion about this at the Delegates' meeting at the WC in Bangkok. The suggestion was to make all the reports available for all delegates to spread information about incidents and to inspire more conform reports. The Incidents Log partly solves this.

[quote="anders":15j3gq2z]The WCA Delegate's reports are regulated by 1c1) Reporting to the WCA Board about whether the full WCA regulations were followed during the competition. Reports must be available within one week after the competition. 1c2) Reporting to the WCA Board about the overall course of the competition, and about incidents. Reports must be available within one week after the competition. and I am sure that each delegate interprets this differently. We had a discussion about this at the Delegates' meeting at the WC in Bangkok. The suggestion was to make all the reports available for all delegates to spread information about incidents and to inspire more conform reports. The Incidents Log partly solves this.[/quote:15j3gq2z] How much of the information in the delegate reports is private? I can imagine three types of information: - private information about e.g. particular competitors - information that can/should be public, but is not about the regulations - information about incidents that could be of benefit to the whole community As the regulations suggest, most of the report should be motivated by regulation-related matters, but I don't know what fraction of the report satisfies this in practice. What exactly is there between the Incidents Log and "not publishing anything" that should be public? If we have a good idea of what it is, we could figure out what to do about it, and whether to create a process to handle it. In any case, I believe it would be reasonable to require the delegate report also to be sent to the WRC. Do you agree?

[quote="Lucas":i3h1zhms]How much of the information in the delegate reports is private? [/quote:i3h1zhms] I occasionally include private information that is intended for the eyes of the WCA Board only. However, I can only speak for myself, since it is only the WCA Board who have access to all the reports. [quote="Lucas":i3h1zhms] In any case, I believe it would be reasonable to require the delegate report also to be sent to the WRC. Do you agree?[/quote:i3h1zhms] Yes, I see no problem with forward the reports to the WRC, provided that the WCA Delegates are clearly informed about it.