AFPUB-2017-GEN-002-DRAFT03

Working-group governance moves into a separate document · The comparison spans Draft 1 to Draft 5, rather than consecutive drafts. Draft 1 specifies a chair and vice-chair, elections, responsibilities, removal, resignation and posting restrictions in the same proposal. Draft 5 refers working-group guidelines and procedures to a separate PDP document and uses plural chairs; its history records a return to two chairs. The omitted details must not be treated as abolished everywhere.

Anonymous initiation and chair-as-editor provision is omitted · Draft 1 lets initiators remain anonymous and assigns the chair responsibility for acting as editor or finding a volunteer. Draft 5 omits that mechanism; its history attributes removal of anonymity and the chair-as-editor option to Draft 4. This is a change between the retained texts, not a claim that it first appeared in Draft 5.

Adoption period changes from a maximum to a minimum · Draft 1 caps the adoption phase at two weeks. Draft 5 requires a call for adoption of at least two weeks, after which the chairs consider the views expressed and announce discussion or rejection. The old-version column embedded in Draft 5 still contains the former maximum; the main proposed text and new-version column use the minimum.

Meeting support leads into the concluding phase · Draft 5 expressly presents the proposal at the next public policy meeting after review and asks whether it has enough support to enter the concluding phase. Major objections raised in that phase must be addressed before consensus is determined. Draft 1 describes rough consensus at the end of review, before last call. Both retain later feedback and the possibility of returning to discussion.

Last call must start within two weeks after the meeting · Draft 5 requires the chairs to initiate last call as soon as possible and no later than two weeks after the public policy meeting. Draft 1 starts last call after a review-phase consensus determination without that express post-meeting deadline. Both retain a last-call period of at least two weeks.

Ratification review includes process flaws and organisational harm · Draft 5 requires a comprehensive submission report and proposes ratification unless the board identifies a materially flawed process or consensus declaration, or harm to the organisation in its fiduciary role. It requires remand with reasons or specific advice. Draft 1 chiefly directs the board to check that the process was followed. This compares proposed board duties, not a legal ruling.

Mandatory pre-adoption board consultation is removed · Draft 1 requires the board to allow at least two weeks of working-group review before its emergency policy action. Draft 5 omits that additional consultation period and refers an adopted emergency policy to the following public policy meeting under the bylaws. The older staff assessment criticises the restriction; that criticism and the later proposed text are separate evidence.

An implementation deadline is restored · Draft 5 adds publication of the implementation date and a target of less than six months after board ratification unless a waiver is requested. Draft 1 lacks an implementation timetable, a gap explicitly identified by its staff assessment. The new clock starts at ratification, not at last-call consensus.

Appeals cover adoption decisions and gain a reporting deadline · Draft 5 expressly includes adoption-phase decisions in appeals. It dates the two-week filing window from announced chair actions or decisions on the list or at a meeting, adds a maximum four-week committee report period unless waived, and states that the committee decision is final. Draft 1 uses public knowledge of the decision and has no report deadline or explicit finality clause.

Capture dates do not establish consecutive legislative steps · Draft 1 has a 2018 submission header but a revision history dating the first posting to April 2017. Draft 5 has a 10 June 2019 submission header and a history entry dated 9 June. Its embedded comparison table contrasts Drafts 4 and 5, whereas this retained request compares Drafts 1 and 5. The differences cannot all be attributed to the final revision alone.