Re:

[Scott W Brim <swb@employees.org>]

On Wed, Sep 11, 2002 10:27:16AM -0700, Dave Crocker allegedly wrote:
> At 10:07 AM 9/11/2002 -0700, Marshall Rose wrote:
> >scott - my point is that if you leave out "and attended" then there is no 
> >ambiguity. when you add "and attended" you introduce ambiguity.
> 
> The dilemma is between what we actually care about, versus what we can 
> easily measure.
> 
> We care about attendance.  (Well, actually, we care about participation.)
> 
> The closest mechanical measure of this is registration.  If we try for 
> anything closer, we won't be able to administer the mechanism of using it.
> 
> So if we pay attention to ease of administration, the rule must be stated 
> as thoroughly unambiguous.  Hence the modification that Marshall is suggesting.

I don't think we should let go of the heart of all this, that we want
active and experienced participants involved.  Technically you can use
registration as a requirement and cover that, since participation
depends on registration, but the point of the requirement evaporates if
that's all you say.  I still like Phil's original suggestion,
"registered for and attended", which at least expresses it partially.