* I agree with the BGA suggestions 1-3. We need more internal discussion before
we can make any official commitment by the Swedish association, but if the rules
can be improved without too much work it seems to me that it would make sense to
do it as soon as possible.

* I also agree more or less with Jons arguments around each point.

* I haven't studied the rules document carefully, but I don't feel that it's difficult
to interpret the intention anywhere, can you give more concrete examples of where the
language would need improvement?

* I notice that already in the previous rules document there are lots of details specified
for the whole congress, e.g. that there should be 9x9, 13x13, computer go, rengo, pairs,
team, blitz, rapid and that the thinking time in the blitz should be 10 minutes.
When was all this decided? When organising the 2008 congress I was under the impression
that the congress organiser had more freedom to choose side events, and there haven't always
been all these particular side events. I believe that organisers might come up with new
ideas for side events that could be tried and that it's unnecessary to stipulate all these
details in rules. The participants are used to some things of course, and they have their
expectations, but every congress organiser knows that and every congress organiser wants
satisfied participants. Consequently there is hardly any danger in leaving the choice to the
organiser. But a more free format gives some space for possible development, improvement and change.

best regards,
Henric

It's not so much that you cannot interpret the intention, it's more that you have to. For example the phrase bolded here is badly written. I would be disappointed if the EGF Executive objected to simply improving the writing in the document, so far they haven't responded.

I'm impressed! Offering to rewrite this bolded phrase implies you actually understand it. It looks like 100% gibberish to me.

(But we are only native speakers, of course).

The phrase gets its meaning in its context. Read the Supergroup section.

A few weeks before the congress or else at latest during formation of the supergroup, the Tournament Supervisors decide due to an apparently great number of strong participants whether to increase the lower rating consideration bar from 4 dan to X dan.

Come on... If you are willing to read it in its proper context, that phrase is understandable enough and more importantly, as far as I can see, it is not ambiguous. A rewording might aid the ease of the reader, but seriously, who cares? It's a rules text, not a novel! If Robert Jasiek says that it would be much work to implement the rewrite, I am inclined to believe him. In case of language difficulty, just ask the tournament referee!

Besides: the ruleset is for sure easier to understand and less ambiguous than Japanese 1988 rules

Which other phrase would you suggest?