Hi Mike.... I looked at your link and I guess I don't see the obvious. What are we missing?
While it's a correct, documented reference to the process we (SMAC) are involved in (rules changes being submitted to the CRB for review/input), it is by far now more efficient with the application of technology as evidenced by 43+ pages of comments on this thread.
In this instance we've had nearly 3 months worth of input (member, committee, & CRB), debate, data analyzed (moving the process all the way down to "Recommended rule change") and we (SMAC) have submitted preliminary syntax on how we feel the recommended changed need to be put out in FastTrack.
We are operating at "box 2" immediately under the decision diamond I feel.
This is all still dependent upon the CRB approving of the rule changes themselves (we are still in the dark on whether they have been approved or not) and could still be altered based upon what is issued as "approved" by the board. They may feel something should have a wider or smaller tolerance or allowance than we initially thought or out of our 4/5/6 rule suggestions they only take 3 of them. And even then the CRB needs approval of the Board of Directors to actually implement said rule change(s).
Once the CRB approves the rule change, it is sent out to Membership for input, and barring a mutinous letter-writing campaign, will more than likely be approved by the BoD in November/December as a 2016 rule.
Does that answer your question Mike?
The part when it goes out for Member input and a few wise guys get a few smart people to write letters not recommending the change.... I really doubt the SMAC got a lot of letters asking for the change from people who race 1.6 cars, certainly not enough to move any needle by any measure....