On 18 Nov 02  20:48:00, Alex Shakhaylo said the following to Bob Short:

AS>  BS> We managed well enough to compromise on a fair proposal.  Cooler heads
AS>  BS> usually prevail.  ;-)
 
AS> I don't think it is fair that only RCs vote for a new policy or policy
AS> amendments. It would be fair if RCs votes were proportional to number
AS> of members of their regions. Our people are disappointed by amendment.

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

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

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

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

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 for
AS>  BS> deciding whether an amendment proceeds to the balloting phase.
AS>  BS> IE: Initiation.
 
AS> I think this concept is completely wrong. And I understand why Ward
AS> is trying to pass trough this one. He wants that minority ruled
AS> majority.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 think
AS> that current practice is legitimate one. P4 says about referenda, not
AS> about RCs voting.

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

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

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

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

Bob

--- GEcho 1.00