On 20 Nov 02  20:31:00, Alex Shakhaylo said the following to Bob Short:

AS>  AS>> May be. But in my neck of the wood this amendment is not welcomed.
 
AS>  BS> I can't accept that until I am sure you (and/or they) fully understand
AS>  BS> what we are trying to do with this proposal.
 
AS> You are trying to simplify the procedure for policy changing. Do you ?

Yes.  This is what we are trying to help you understand.  Our proposal
focuses on the areas involving the way Fidonet Policy is amended.  As
it states, passing it will both clarify the process, and make it really
possible (without the need for interpretive intervention).

Some have argued that simplifing it will leave room for a small group
to sneak in undesired changes, so quora were introduced to ensure
minimum participation requirements for a proposal to pass from one stage
to the next.

AS> I understand you. You have worked for the year and you are not in a 
AS> mood to put your work to a pot. I would feel the same at your place.

Of course not... but that is not my motivation for trying to disuade
you from your plans.  I DO encourage you to fight for the rights you
would like to have, but not concurrently with this proposal.  You (we)
have waited over 13 years for this to happen.  A little while longer
won't hurt, but trying to extend the scope of our proposal to include
your plan will only hurt everyone.

AS>  BS> I won't comment on the rest of your message here, other than to say
AS>  BS> that what you expect is not yet realistic.  You can not, I repeat
AS>  BS> not, achieve sysops level voting on matters of Policy.
 
AS> I don't understand why are you so pessimistic.

I'm realistic.  Fidonet history has proven my point.  It will be
challenging enough to get these simple changes approved by the *C's
as it is, and you expect to shove sysop level voting down their
throats at the same time?  Take a reality check.

AS> It is possible now. There is nothing impossible for network-wide referenda.

What you propose to do will end up as impotent as the recent "Alter-
List" movent.  All the sysops in Fidonet can vote with one accord,
yet it would be of no avail if the *C's (remember the *C's?, you know,
the ones who actually have the vote?) refuse to embrace the results.

But... if you (we) make incremental changes, in the right order, we
may accomplish the same ends over a (relatively) short period.  What
IF it takes another year or two?  What's that compared to never (as
in what rebellion and radical thought will result in).

AS>  BS> Until now, efforts like ours have been futile.  Then, a while ago,
AS>  BS> Ward mentioned that he would relax the "ALL RC's"
requirement for
AS>  BS> passage of a referendum...
 
AS> Ward ? I didn't saw from the current policy that he had this power.

From P4.07, section 7.1 :



In cases not specifically covered by this document, the International Coordi-
nator may issue specific interpretations or extensions to this policy.  The
Zone Coordinator Council may reverse such rulings by a majority vote.



Citing the case of MIA or un-responsive RC's, he has envoked this section
to temporarily reduce the number of RC's required to initiate a referendum
(for this stage only).  I don't believe he has any intention of making
further interpretations for whatever ratification phase takes place.

AS> All you need is network-wide referenda. This is a common way to change
AS> anything. And I don't believe it is very difficult to run.

There is NOTHING common in what you propose.  There is no precedent
for a general sysop-wide poll or vote having any effect other than
arriving at non-binding consensus.  No such action can effect what
you would like to see happen.  It can only be done via the means
already in place, which we are attempting to amend.

AS> Ward approves only changes that help him to save his position.

BS.  You are allowing you personal differences to taint your actions.
You have made mention more than once of your opinions about Ward, and
none of them have any bearing on Policy change.  Didn't you read me
clearly when I said he was one of those contributing to our proposal?
Why would he act as a proponent, it he didn't believe in, and want to
see positive changes?  Think about that (and everything else)...

Bob

--- GEcho 1.00