> AFAIK everyone regards tech reports as non-publications, so if W1 and
> W2 are treated as tech reports and are "not to be considered against"
> C, then the size of X can be 0.
> 
> (Since if X must be larger-than-0, then W1 and W2 ARE being held
> against C, in proprotion to the required size of X.)
> 
> So I'm confused... how am I misreading what you've written?  Or if
> not, which policy are you suggesting SIGCOMM adpot?  X>0, or X>=0?

I am hearing another variant, but I am also sufficiently confused that
I'll throw it out, too....

What I am hearing is that if X>0 then W1&W2 are not to be held against
C.  But, if X=0 then W1&W2 are held against C.  If I am right then I
assume the logic here is that if X=0 then we're just re-publishing.

The words are what are getting us in trouble here (e.g., "workshop
paper" even though Vern's initial note explicitly includes short papers
From IM**C**, "tech report" which means ... well, what the hell does it
mean?!).  Whatever statement we come up with needs to be very carefully
worded and very explicitly worded.

allman