Hi, Bob!

19 Nov 02 00:48, Bob Short said to Alex Shakhaylo:

 AS>  BS>> We managed well enough to compromise on a fair proposal.
 AS>  BS>> Cooler heads usually prevail.  ;-)

 AS>> I don't think it is fair that only RCs vote for a new policy or
 AS>> policy amendments. It would be fair if RCs votes were proportional
 AS>> to number of members of their regions. Our people are disappointed
 AS>> by amendment.

 BS> Representative voting is what you refer to.  It may be possible to
 BS> mandate this through Policy in the future, but not at this time.
 BS> What you expect has been tried before, and failed because it was
 BS> too radical a change.  Trying to add it to this amendment would
 BS> kill it for sure.

May be. But in my neck of the wood this amendment is not welcomed.
Does it count ?

 BS> Remember... even the US Constitution took centuries to amend.

Well, though I think we should figth not for amendment itself, but
for improvement. Current amendment is not iprovement, it just simplifies
policy changing, but decreases the democratic spirit of the network.

 AS>> I remember. But I waited for more conceptual changes of this one.

 BS> As presented, this amendment will not include anything other than
 BS> what we drafted, unless added to by the *C's during any discussion
 BS> period.

I've got it. That's why I'm trying different way.

 AS>  AS>>> Why RCs ? Do we have a network where RCs define a policy ?

 AS>  BS>> At this stage they do, in that they are the group rsponsible
 AS>  BS>> for deciding whether an amendment proceeds to the balloting
 AS>  BS>> phase. IE: Initiation.

 AS>> I think this concept is completely wrong. And I understand why
 AS>> Ward is trying to pass trough this one. He wants that minority
 AS>> ruled majority.

 BS> From what you say here, I can come to 2 possible conclusions:

 BS> A) You haven't read section 8 completely, or
 BS> B) You haven't fully understood section 8.

I have read it and I understand it. But there is not much sence in a
tool you cannot use. If even all of the r50 and r46 sysops go against
z2c they will be able to do nothing, these 5000-6000 of sysops are
presented by only 2 RCs. This is the current way West European
minority rules East Eauropian majority. Let us be truthful. Relations
between East and West Euarope is very much like relations between the
USA and Europe. There are nice people on both sides, but when poll was
run in the fn_sysop voices were strictly separated by the columns. (If
you remember my voice was at 'yes' side).
The same thing that happened in fn_sysop during last poll is happening
in z2 all the time and the current amendment only helps to strengthen
this situation.

Please, think about it.

 BS> What we propose is to relax the requirement that ALL RC's vote
 BS> for a referrendum, yet add a minimum number who do.  Current
 BS> Policy requires that a majority of ALL RC's must vote "yes" to
 BS> initiate an amendment ratification vote, and even then, "abstain"
 BS> votes count as "no".

Oh, please, do. I will not scream and shout here and there. I'll try
to run a poll and to see sysops' attitude toward asked questions. Then
I'll show the results. It they agree with what you do then you are
twice right. If not, then I'm sure you'll be brave enough to face it
and to make conclusions.

 BS> Our proposal lowers this to a majority of RESPONDING RC's voting
 BS> "yes", with a minimum of 10% participation, and abstains counting
 BS> only toward the quorum.

 BS> A "minority" has /always/ had control over the process...

But not concerning 'constitution'. And yes, I would not object if
z2 situation wasn't so unique. you know what I'm talking about.
If any changes are going to be accepted they must reflect the
current situation. I only want that every fidonet member's voice
was equally heard and accounted. Unfortunately, your amendment is
a step back in this sence :(

 AS>> Hm .. You don't need poll, but we (r50 and r46) do need poll, I
 AS>> think. And we are the real majority of fidonet, you know.

 BS> The polls needed are those the RC's should conduct among their
 BS> regionls nets and nodes, to know how they should vote.

I think any polls are needed in case we want to get aware with a truth.
I heard so many times that the real power in fidonet belongs to the
sysops that I have finally put my trust in it :-)

 BS> If you (or anyone else, for that matter) go about polling here
 BS> and there on other amendment issues not covered in this proposal,
 BS> all you'll accomplish is to confuse people.  :(

This is the second side of the coin :(
But I see no other way to make sysops' voices to be heard.

Do you want to hear last comment on the amendment made in r46.sysop ?

"People, let us ignore all the rest of fidonet as they are ignoring
us. Anyway we are more numerous and they can do nothing to us" ..

I don't like this way of thinking, but your amendment encourages it.

 AS>> I've posted proposal to our regional echo, but one voice of our RC
 AS>> doesn't matter much according to current practice. And I don't
 AS>> think that current practice is legitimate one. P4 says about
 AS>> referenda, not about RCs voting.

 BS> I wish we could go over P4 together in person, so I could help
 BS> you better understand what it says, and what's happening here.

 BS> Your one RC's voice the one needed to act for your region.  It is
 BS> his responsibility (morally, if not legally) to solicit your opinions
 BS> before casting his vote for or against an referrendum (initiating a
 BS> vote by ALL the *C's for ratification).  If he hasn't asked in the
 BS> regional echos, then it's up to you all to inform him how you think
 BS> he should vote.

 BS> So... if you support changing Policy, tell him so.  If you don't
 BS> support change, tell him so.

 BS> In the mean time, please cease any further attempts at any other
 BS> amendment proposals, and let's concentrate on the one that many
 BS> of us worked MONTHS to finish here.  :)

I understand you Bob, you've spent so much time and efforts with this
amendment, but let us not make a justification of it. I'm sorry I've
got here too late, but I don't want that our part of fidonet separated
from the community. do you want it ? If not then let us make something
to prevent it.

Bye, Sinc, Alex

--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1