Originally Posted by
McNugent
1. It’s rumors you’re talking about. F’ing RUMORS. Chill and read it when it comes out.
2. Even if scope weren’t involved in the final language, I would want the scope pros going through it with a fine toothed comb and briefing me on why they think it would or wouldn’t be acceptable.
Now go back to the rumor mill. I’ll have another beer 🍻
OF COURSE we're talking about rumors. You might need 'chill'...or stop reading sections that contain ONLY rumor.
In case you haven't noticed, the LEC reps are still taking calls and input, and are reactive to mid course guidance. The reason I pointed that out is because we might want to start reviewing and thinking about UPA scope provisions and what type of changes we would accept or reject. Once you get a group leaning one way they tend to minimize or disregard warning signs. Didn't we learn about this in CQ?... The MEC update was the 1st mention of scope related to this TA. Assume that away if you wish, but my antennae just got perked up.