On (11 Nov 02) Alex Shakhaylo wrote to Bob Short...

Hello Alex,

 AS> acceptable. But I would like to bring one question here to discuss.

 AS> Let us look closer to the unique situation in Z2. You know, three
 AS> regions here come to overwhelming majority not only in zone, but
 AS> in the whole network as well. From the opposite side when voting
 AS> on any subject all these people are presented by only three RC
 AS> and have no real influence at vote result. Doesn't it seem to you
 AS> unfair ?

 AS> Ideally it would be fair if every fidonet member had his voice
 AS> accounted, not only *C (after all this is member's network, not
 AS> coordinator's).

 AS> Well, I understand that from organizational point of view it
 AS> is very difficult to be organized, but some compromise is
 AS> needed. For example RCs voices could be proportional if not
 AS> to members number, at least to network number in a region.

 AS> There are region in Z2 consisting of only one person (RC)
 AS> and this RC has the same vote weight as R50C which consists
 AS> of 6000 members or so. I regard this situation as deadly
 AS> wrong and ridiculous.

To do what you desire would not be hard in my opinion. Allow me to
look at this from your proposal and offer some thoughts. :)

What you seem to propose is what is done in the USA for voting on our
president. Each state has a certain number of votes based on the
population.  Fidonet could do something similar, but it would be
difficult to police such a system unless each *C were required to vote
the will of the people they represent.

Each Region could be given a number of votes based on the population
of the Region. As example, for every 10 Nodes, the Region gets one
vote. This would balance the scale some, but if a *C votes his or her
will without regard for the wishes of the Net, Region or Zone that
they are supposed to represent, this falls apart quickly

In my idea, each NC would be required to hold an election in his/her
Net. Each RC would be required to hold an election of the Regional
Independents in his/her Region. The NCs would then forward the total
"yea and nay" votes to the RC who would combine them with the votes of
the Regional Independents and vote accordingly to the ZC who would then
either pass the votes to the IC if it were an International Fidonet
election or declare the "winner" if it is a Zone matter.

Each *C would be required to publish the results of the vote in a
public echo for all to count and check. This could be simply a list of
passwords with the "yea" or "nay" vote after each
password. This way,
each voter could verify his/her vote and others could verify that the
vote was taken and the results.

This procedure would work for all elections from NC to IC and for
ratification of policy as well as most other election processes.


Of course, either of our ideas would require one very key component.
The *Cs would have to be required by policy to vote according to the
will of their Nodes or required to pass the vote up the line
unaltered. A punishment would need to be in place for those *Cs who
violate this requirement.

This is just my opinion and view.

Regards,

Frank

http://pages.sbcglobal.net/flv
http://biseonline.com/r19

--- PPoint 3.01