On 13 Sep 02  08:42:40, Philip Lozier said the following to Bob Short:

 > Can you be more specific on the parts to which disagree?
 
PL> The main part I disagree with is the very small percentage required on  
PL> the (vote) to make an ammendment be "ratified".

OK. and answered in my last message.

PL> I also think there should be a top level down requirement that notification
PL> -IS- given on a proposal, not a best attempt made...  those not responding 
PL> such a notification are not doing their jobs, and should be treated 
PL> accoridingly.

How do you suppose we do that?  Can you suggest how to ensure a
netmail is delivered to a system which is down, or is otherwise
unreachable?  De we expect the IC to incur the LD costs of crash
netmail to each and every RC?  IF not, what happens if routed
netmail gets lost or is undeliverable for some reason?  Would
this then invalidate the process?

PL> Any *C being sent notification should be -required- to respond...  putting 
PL> place this new system for policy updates should also include the -requireme
PL> that -all- *C's participate, lest they be replaced... no replacement found,
PL> their underlings be absorbed into another region/net that complies.

That was discussed here, and we thought better of makeing such radical
changes.  This sort of change was attempted before, and resulted in 
dismal failure.  This isn't to say that we might not get something to
that effect passed in the future... just not at this time.

PL> Allowing for policy changes to be effected in such a manner should not be t
PL> lightly, and the days of the lazy SysOp/Node/*C should come to an end with 
PL> as well.

I believe there are more appropriate ways of dealing with such issues
outside of (yet referred to by) Policy.  What a *C does/doesn't do,
and the repercussions, are best left to local policies (IMHO).

Bob

--- GEcho 1.00