Hi, Carol!

23 Nov 02 11:48, Carol Shenkenberger said to Alex Shakhaylo:

 CS> Remember when you think that votes should be adjusted for the numbers
 CS> in a region though, that the smaller ones have a right to not be too
 CS> overwhelmed.

I think of more comlex scheme.  The RCs' votes should be adjusted not to
number of people in regions, but to number of voted and to ratio between
yes/no votes.  In this way we'll get the whole picture and the only that
will have a value will be the opinion of those,  who decided to partici-
pate.

Why RCs ? Because to run voting on a regional level is more simple task,
than to run fidowide voting.  After regions voted we only should account
the regions' results and get the whole picture.

 CS> There are many issues.  Z2 could force all Z1 to remove 1/2 it's
 CS> members if they passed something that required ION's shift in ways
 CS> they cant/wont do. They arent all ION's but the people who draw from
 CS> those ION feeds.

It is hardly migth happen, if RCs' voices were adjusted according
to participants number. The opinions inside big regions differ as
well as inside small ones :-)

 CS> It's more complex than it looks at first.  The key is to make sure
 CS> what you do, does not adversly impact another zone.

We want to move forward as you do. IP technology is quickly distributed
here and old policy reflects present state of fidoned less and less.

Bye, Sinc, Alex

--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1