Howdy,
On Wed, 10 Mar 2004, Mark Sirota wrote:
> > Note that all of this is different from the current situation _only in
> > the cases where the FSM would resolve the protest_. Which, as we've all
> > seen & experienced, probably isn't the majority of the protests anyway.
> > And protests themselves are pretty damn rare.
>
> So would changing the timing of the requirement from "when the protest is
> heard" to "when the PC asks for it" solve the entire problem?
Perhaps. The Protestee needs to be given reasonable time to get the
documentation the PC asks for (up to the FSM), but other than that, that's
certainly the primary point.
The related point is that if the protestee is going to incur expense to
get the docs the PC wants, those expenses should be part of the protest
bond. That's not the direct point however, and the issues could certainly
be seperated.
I see the current deal as having a few problems... By requiring the FSM
and DSQ'ing people that don't have it at the time of the protest, you
force someone to incur $2k (porche example) on the change they _might_ be
protested. If, instead, you allow the PC to tell the protestee what
documentation they need, the PC has the ability to tell the protestee that
they need the factory spec width for the whozit#32 and the protestee can
(in the case of those expensive manual folks) head down to the dealer and
get the info from them instead of spending $2k on some docs, 99.9% of
which will remain unused.
Mark
|