Dr. [Ephraim] Radner, who accepted the premise that the covenant itself was not intended to resolve the current difficulties with TEC, nonetheless considered that a resolution of those difficulties needed to be reached before a covenant could usefully be entered into. (I don’t think he meant a resolution by inaction and putting the matter aside. See his letter of July 13.) It seems possible at least to envision a solution involving a combination of a covenant involving substantial improvements to the St. Andrew’s draft (without scrapping it altogether) and a contemporaneous disciplining of TEC that would be illustrative as to future application. Without at least that, it is hard to see the value of proceeding with a covenant.
—Mike Watson on the very important thread on this blog below, all of which deserves careful perusal