[Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule

[Kynnyth Pyke]

From: Kynnyth Pyke <scacynwrig at yahoo.com>
To: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 2:59:17 PM
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule

That isn't unreasonable at this point...

Practices that do not satisfy the basic rules must obtain a waiver.  I recommend you contact Allen immediately if you are in this case.  It is up to him to determine what level of documentation, if any, is required on his part to provide the authorization.  For static sites, there is no expiration on the authorization.  For sites where things change the waiver is valid for the configuration that is described to the KEM.  I would clarify this by saying that you are receiving authorization for how you build out the safety zone.  If you change target layout in such a way that you can still take advantage of the coverage, then that authorization will still be valid.

Kynny


----- Original Message ----
From: Garth G. Groff <ggg9y at virginia.edu>
To: Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
Sent: Fri, March 5, 2010 12:33:16 PM
Subject: Re: [Archers] Specifically, the 'written exception' rule

Noble friends,

I put in my two cents when this thread started and have watched it ever since, keeping my peace. I don't begrudge anyone having their say, and agree that a number of serious issues have been raised, but we're just spinning our wheels. It is time that Lord Kynneth and Lord Allen stepped and made their pronouncements, clarifications, etc., so we can all get our tape measures, transecs, whatever, go measure our respective ranges, and start writing our waiver requests.

Mungo the Grumpy


_______________________________________________
Archers mailing list
Archers at seahorse.atlantia.sca.org
http://seahorse.atlantia.sca.org/listinfo.cgi/archers-atlantia.sca.org