Comment #1Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: GeneralComment: I support and agree with the given definition of "shall" in the RESNET standards. In legal terms shall and must are definitive having no gray area whereas should, may or can, leave room for interpretation. Use of the word shall carries with it a coexistent of mandatory which also is clearly defined.
I support and agree with the given definition of "shall" in the RESNET standards. In legal terms shall and must are definitive having no gray area whereas should, may or can, leave room for interpretation. Use of the word shall carries with it a coexistent of mandatory which also is clearly defined.
Comment #2Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Comment Type: GeneralComment: Are we making a suggestion or setting a minimum standard? If we are making a suggestion or encouraging an action, then "should" is appropriate. If we are setting a minumim standard or mandatory requirement, then "shall" or "must" is appropriate. No grey area IMO as Websters definition's are clear. Good luck.
Are we making a suggestion or setting a minimum standard?
If we are making a suggestion or encouraging an action, then "should" is appropriate. If we are setting a minumim standard or mandatory requirement, then "shall" or "must" is appropriate.
No grey area IMO as Websters definition's are clear. Good luck.
Comment #3Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: GeneralComment: I support RESNET adoption of language that makes the word "SHALL" - mandatory and that is must be accomplished by the responsible party. I would only offer a question as to whether there is any need to also further define "responsible party" to prevent any wiggle room in stating that someone is not responsible?
I support RESNET adoption of language that makes the word "SHALL" - mandatory and that is must be accomplished by the responsible party. I would only offer a question as to whether there is any need to also further define "responsible party" to prevent any wiggle room in stating that someone is not responsible?
Comment #4Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: Appendix B “Glossary of Terms”Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The proposed language is consistent with ongoing changes in ASTM and other standards to remove unclear terms and replace with mandatory language.
The proposed language is consistent with ongoing changes in ASTM and other standards to remove unclear terms and replace with mandatory language.
Comment #5Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: pds301-101Comment Type: TechnicalComment: Are oyu serious?? Resnet is bogging down over the choice between "shall vs. should" Who really gives a damn - besides you guys in offices - why don'y you get the lawyers out of the way and start relating and supportting the floks in the real world trying to help wiht energy efficenctcy issue!!!!!!!
Are oyu serious?? Resnet is bogging down over the choice between "shall vs. should"
Who really gives a damn - besides you guys in offices - why don'y you get the lawyers out of the way and start relating and supportting the floks in the real world trying to help wiht energy efficenctcy issue!!!!!!!
Comment #6Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: GeneralComment: Like many others I am surprised that this is even being debated. With that said, "shall" we put in the one overriding item which is "unless something is contrary to state law or regulations? Proposed Change: Shall - As used in this Standard, the word ‘shall’ means that the action specified is mandatory and must be accomplished by the responsible party unless such action is prohibited by state law or regulation.
Like many others I am surprised that this is even being debated. With that said, "shall" we put in the one overriding item which is "unless something is contrary to state law or regulations?
Shall - As used in this Standard, the word ‘shall’ means that the action specified is mandatory and must be accomplished by the responsible party unless such action is prohibited by state law or regulation.
Comment #7Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: ?Paragraph / Figure / Table / Note: ?Comment Type: GeneralComment: In a contract, "shall" or "will" means something is required. Should means it is suggested, but not necessairly required.
In a contract, "shall" or "will" means something is required. Should means it is suggested, but not necessairly required.
Comment #8Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: EditorialComment: This use of "must" instead of "shall" is clearly explained in the Federal Plain Language Guidelines. http://www.plainlanguage.gov/ On the subject of shall vs. must see page 25 of the Guidelines copied below — iv. Use “must” to indicate requirements The word “must” is the clearest way to convey to your audience that they have to do something. “Shall” is one of those officious and obsolete words that has encumbered legal style writing for many years. The message that “shall” sends to the audience is, “this is deadly material.” “Shall” is also obsolete. When was the last time you heard it used in everyday speech? Besides being outdated, “shall” is imprecise. It can indicate either an obligation or a prediction. Dropping “shall” is a major step in making your document more user-friendly. Don’t be intimidated by the argument that using “must” will lead to a lawsuit. Many agencies already use the word “must” to convey obligations. The US Courts are eliminating “shall” in favor of “must” in their Rules of Procedure. Instead of using “shall”, use: “must” for an obligation “must not” for a prohibition “may” for a discretionary action and “should” for a recommendation. Please reference the source of "Standard and regulation requires the term "shall"". What standard and regulation? As part of my work on Chapter 2 I've confirmed with ANSI that they don't specify "standards lanuage" and do not require shall instead of must in their standards. I'm confident that I can get this in writing from them if necessary. Further plain language is already law for federal agencies under the Plain Language Act of 2010. http://www.plainlanguage.gov/plLaw/index.cfm Why do we need an ammendment to tell the reader that "shall" specifies something that must be done? If something is mandatory and must be accomplished then why not just say "must"? Proposed Change: The word "shall" should not be used anywhere in the RESNET standards. The fact that RESNET is considering this ammendment is just another example of the confusion that is caused by using "shall". "Must" is clear and not open for interpretation. This ammendment should not be adopted.
This use of "must" instead of "shall" is clearly explained in the Federal Plain Language Guidelines. http://www.plainlanguage.gov/
On the subject of shall vs. must see page 25 of the Guidelines copied below —
iv. Use “must” to indicate requirements
The word “must” is the clearest way to convey to your audience that they have to do something. “Shall” is one of those officious and obsolete words that has encumbered legal style writing for many years. The message that “shall” sends to the audience is, “this is deadly material.” “Shall” is also obsolete. When was the last time you heard it used in everyday speech?
Besides being outdated, “shall” is imprecise. It can indicate either an obligation or a prediction. Dropping “shall” is a major step in making your document more user-friendly. Don’t be intimidated by the argument that using “must” will lead to a lawsuit. Many agencies already use the word “must” to convey obligations. The US Courts are eliminating “shall” in favor of “must” in their Rules of Procedure.
Instead of using “shall”, use:
Please reference the source of "Standard and regulation requires the term "shall"". What standard and regulation? As part of my work on Chapter 2 I've confirmed with ANSI that they don't specify "standards lanuage" and do not require shall instead of must in their standards. I'm confident that I can get this in writing from them if necessary.
Further plain language is already law for federal agencies under the Plain Language Act of 2010. http://www.plainlanguage.gov/plLaw/index.cfm
Why do we need an ammendment to tell the reader that "shall" specifies something that must be done? If something is mandatory and must be accomplished then why not just say "must"?
The word "shall" should not be used anywhere in the RESNET standards. The fact that RESNET is considering this ammendment is just another example of the confusion that is caused by using "shall". "Must" is clear and not open for interpretation.
This ammendment should not be adopted.
Comment #9Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: OneParagraph / Figure / Table / Note: N/AComment Type: TechnicalComment: Oppose proposed amendment to add definition of word “shall.” Lack of Need: The reason statement fails to clearly substantiate why said definition is necessary. This term is defined in multiple dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster and Black’s Law) and has served the general population well. Further this also seems to suggest that “shall” is the only term that could be considered mandatory, which is not consistent with other consensus developed standards developers documents. Inconsistent: Other terms which are commonly associated with mandatory provisions are not defined. Examples are the words “will” and “must” in the current RESNET documents. This could lead to unintended consequences where “shall” be a defined term could conflict with the intent of the provisions when the words “will” and “must” are employed. For example, “shall” state’s that the specific action must be accomplished by the responsible party, whereas “will” and “must” do not in their dictionary settings. Further there are multiple terms and phrases other than shall that can perform the same duty of expressing a mandatory condition, but which are not addressed in this proposal. As a result, it is inconsistent to focus only on one term and not all terms if in fact there is a basis for need to do so. Proposed Change: (Disapprove proposed amendment)
Oppose proposed amendment to add definition of word “shall.” Lack of Need: The reason statement fails to clearly substantiate why said definition is necessary. This term is defined in multiple dictionaries (e.g. Merriam-Webster and Black’s Law) and has served the general population well. Further this also seems to suggest that “shall” is the only term that could be considered mandatory, which is not consistent with other consensus developed standards developers documents. Inconsistent: Other terms which are commonly associated with mandatory provisions are not defined. Examples are the words “will” and “must” in the current RESNET documents. This could lead to unintended consequences where “shall” be a defined term could conflict with the intent of the provisions when the words “will” and “must” are employed. For example, “shall” state’s that the specific action must be accomplished by the responsible party, whereas “will” and “must” do not in their dictionary settings. Further there are multiple terms and phrases other than shall that can perform the same duty of expressing a mandatory condition, but which are not addressed in this proposal. As a result, it is inconsistent to focus only on one term and not all terms if in fact there is a basis for need to do so.
(Disapprove proposed amendment)
Comment #10Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb.
The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #11Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #12Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #13Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #14Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #15Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #16Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #17Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #18Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #19Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: TechnicalComment: The definition of "Shall" is appropriate, but there are many instances in the Standards where non-binding words such as "should", "may", or "can" are used, where "shall", showing requirement, is the correct verb. Proposed Change: The next step after the adoption of the definition of "shall" is to have the committee go through the Standard and search for suggestive verbs such as "may", "should", and "can" to determine if the replacement with "shall" is appropriate, then submit that draft for public comment.
Comment #20Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: 1Comment Type: GeneralComment: Note in the Proposed Amendment definition of "Shall" is the word "must". I do not support this amendment. Replace "Shall" with "Must" and be done. I noted in several of the online comments the same wording in their comment sections...hopefully we are not counting numbers of for and against. I agree with one of the commentors concerning the use of "must" being in the Federal Standards. We must change our language to be more imperative. I picked up the 2012 IRC and found the word "shall" in Chapter 2 definitions. It says.."Shall. The term, when used in the code , is construed as mandatory. " I understand why this amendment is being proposed...but if we change the wording in the RESNET standards to "must"...then we simplify the language and it is much more imperative and we do not need an amendment. Let's keep things simple and move on. Proposed Change: Strike "Shall" replace with "Must"
Note in the Proposed Amendment definition of "Shall" is the word "must".
I do not support this amendment. Replace "Shall" with "Must" and be done. I noted in several of the online comments the same wording in their comment sections...hopefully we are not counting numbers of for and against.
I agree with one of the commentors concerning the use of "must" being in the Federal Standards. We must change our language to be more imperative. I picked up the 2012 IRC and found the word "shall" in Chapter 2 definitions. It says.."Shall. The term, when used in the code , is construed as mandatory. "
I understand why this amendment is being proposed...but if we change the wording in the RESNET standards to "must"...then we simplify the language and it is much more imperative and we do not need an amendment.
Let's keep things simple and move on.
Strike "Shall" replace with "Must"
Comment #21Amendment: Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"Page Number: allComment Type: GeneralComment: I oppose this amendment. RESNET should instead adopt a different amemendment that would clean up the standards using the following: "must" for obligations "must not" for prohibitiions "may" for discretionary actions "should" for recommedations Proposed Change: kill the amendment
I oppose this amendment. RESNET should instead adopt a different amemendment that would clean up the standards using the following:
"must" for obligations
"must not" for prohibitiions
"may" for discretionary actions
"should" for recommedations
kill the amendment
Return to Proposed Amendment on Definition of "Shall"