"shall" vs. "must" in the rules
This discussion has an associated proposal. View Proposal Details here.Comments about this discussion:
Started
In another discussion it turned out that "shall" was traditionally used in formal texts, but here a rethinking is taking place and "must" is rather used in formal texts (link from John: https://www.plainlanguage.gov/guidelines/conversational/shall-and-must/)
Even if other rules, such as the athletics rules, use "shall", we could use "must" here, following the information of the link.
I would suggest a general proposal for the track part without explicitly mentioning all the occurrences of "shall". Especially because most of the occurrences of "shall" are in the proposals we voted on in this round of the Rulebook Committe.
Comment
Yes to that.
Comment
Comment from John in the other discussion:
> I think 'shall' is appropriate for things that aren't unclear if they don't say 'must'. For example, "The race shall be run in lanes as far as the nearer edge of the breakline where riders may leave their respective lanes. The breakline shall be an arced line marked after the first bend across all lanes other than lane 1." Or possibly use a different word, such as 'will' or 'is' for the examples above. It just sounds odd to say 'must' when we're describing the international Athletics rules for how to run an 800m race on an Athletics track.
Sorry to make it complicated. Otherwise I agree with the idea of a separate proposal for just this purpose.
Comment
If John is happy, I am happy. (On this subject, that is.)
Comment
I agree with Jan on using 'shall' in places where the action or instruction is not imperative, such as in his examples from the Athletics rules. But to use 'must' where we want it to be clear it is not an option.
Comment
I am unsure whether I would really like a mixed use of "shall" and "must". For me, the use of two different terms always gives the impression that different things are meant - in the end, however, "shall" and "must" always mean the obligation to do or not to do something specific, so there are no cases where "shall" is written and it is an option. That's why I had started to use a uniform wording in all proposals, to remove exactly this uncertainty from the rules. I had decided to use "shall", because for me it is the more formal way to express an obligation - now I got the feedback that "shall" is not seen as clear as I always have and "must" is therefore the better option. As a consequence, I would therefore replace all occurrences of "shall" with "must".
For all the cases where there is no obligation, of course another word like "should" must be used - but in these places there should be no "shall" at the moment.
Comment
I agree with Jan on the word usage; anything else would likely lead to confusion, especially among non-native English speakers (this language is hard enough for native speakers). When describing something like the dimensions of the track itself, I don't think we need to say "must" on those things we are unlikely to be creating for ourselves, such as a pre-existing track. In that case I would stick to the language of the Athletics text you were using as a source. We are highly unlikely to be creating our own tracks.
Comment
> When describing something like the dimensions of the track itself, I don't think we need to say "must" on those things we are unlikely to be creating for ourselves, such as a pre-existing track. In that case I would stick to the language of the Athletics text you were using as a source. We are highly unlikely to be creating our own tracks.
I completely agree with you that we will probably never create our own tracks. However, I would prefer to use a uniform wording in our rulebook - because using the wording from athletics would mean using "shall" when describing the dimensions of the track and so on, and thus having a mixture of "shall" and "must" in our rulebook again.
Comment
>I would prefer to use a uniform wording in our rulebook
Most users are non-native English speakers, I would guess. The finer details of the distinction between "shall" and "must" will escape most of them. They may be left wondering (for example) whether a "shall" rule is perhaps more lenient than a "must" rule. So if it is compatible with the linguistic intuition of native English speakers, I would also prefer using a single word throughout (and "must" seems the better candidate). We don't have to worry about discrepancies between WorldAthletics and ourselves, because most readers won't consult WA documentation, and besides, we are independent from WA.
Comment
Yup, better not to mix them. I think we "must" be consistent!
Comment
I have created a corresponding proposal.
Comment
Proposal looks good!
Comment
Yes, looks good. Nicely worded background.
Can we somehow recommend that the General Committee judges and possibly streamlines the use of "shall" and "must" outside of Chapter 2?
Comment
What about adding the following sentence to the proposal:
The Track Committee, by approving this proposal, is simultaneously recommending to the Main Committee a corresponding harmonization throughout the entire IUF Rulebook and therefore a replacement of all occurrence of "shall" by "must" outside of chapter 2.
Comment
Yes we could do that. Alternatively, or perhaps in addition, we could contact the Main Committee e.g. by e-mail.
Comment
If there are no further comments on this proposal, I would put it to a vote as soon as the review time is over.
Comment
OK.