Hi Dale,

 -=>> On 06-03-04  20:11,  Peter Knapper <=-
 -=>> spoke to Mark Lewis about International Coodinator <=-

 PK>> I think this was one of the reasons why many RC's gave up,
 PK>> there was just  total confusion over WHICH document was being
 PK>> voted on. Too many options were posted and that led to some
 PK>> confusion.

 DS>    There was one major proposal that was being published as the
 DS>    consensus of a large group of workers.

Correct... some 2 dozen people from several zones...

 DS>    Others did float other  possibilities, but there was never really
 DS>    more than one document  under consideration.

Yet did manage to help deter passage of ours...

 PK>> My scenario for a "best chance" method next time is - 1. ONE
 PK>> person is elected by a group of proposers to be
 PK>> their official representative.

 DS>   That was Bob Short, with assists from me and a few others.  Officially
 DS>   stated early on in the presentation.

Correct.  I asked the other drafters, and they collectively accepted me as that
'spokesperson", though I was more instrumentally involved in submission
and contact with the IC.

 PK>> 3. The rep submits just ONE complete replacement Policy
 PK>> document to the  IC for consideration.

 DS>   Yep, that is what we did.

:)

 PK>> 2. The IC rallies the RC's in an RC (+IC) only Echo.

 DS>   Almost -- it was not an RC only echo, it was the IC's echo -- and he
 DS>   more or less forbade moving it to the RC only echo.

Suggestions were made for either of the two RC echos, but there was
too much debate on WHICH one to get people there.

 PK>> 3. When enough are there, the IC distributes the document to
 PK>> the RC's. This  can be done as a posting in the Echo and/or offer it for
 PK>> pickup from a SINGLE distribution site.

 DS>    Done -- Bob Short posted it in the echo, and in fidonews.

I know I submitted the summary of proposed changes, but not sure about
the 'complete document'.  IIRC, it was the former, saving a full document
for an IC announcement.

 PK>> 4. The RC's review the document and say YES or NO to a
 PK>> referendum.

 DS>    They should have -- but too many of them did not say anything.
 DS>    Enough were there, but they went away without casting a vote.

 PK>> IMHO, once a new document is sent to the IC, there should be
 PK>> no further "general discussion" about the document in

 DS>    Difficult to squelch discussion in any fido echo.

Discussions, in and of themselves, wouldn't have been nearly as
detrimental as the convoluted arguments we saw.  As you say below,
answers were available for the inquiring RC...

 PK>> any areas related to the *C structure that needs to make a
 PK>> decision. They need to make that decision based on a CLEAN
 PK>> table, not one littered with crumbs. If the RC's need to ask
 PK>> a question, then that should be put to the rep and
 PK>> he(she) may refer back to the group (if they exist) for a
 PK>> response.

 DS>   we were there to answer any questions, and did so on multiple
 DS>   occasions.  As well as to correct mis-statements that some made
 DS>   about what the document said.

 PK>> I think the above would have a much better chance at success
 PK>> than what we  actually experienced.

 DS>   What you outline is what the presenting group attempted to do.  I
 DS>   don't see how we could have done anything else.

I learned a couple lessons from the experiment...  When the latest IC
melee dies down, we may want to try again using slightly different
tactics.  :)

 PK>> BTW, were you aware that Ward indicated he had received a
 PK>> total of 6 other Policy proposals AFTER the last attempt?
 PK>> There is certainly enough interest in changing Policy, we
 PK>> just have to find the right combinations to get the process
 PK>> to work.

 DS>   I had not seen that -- wonder how they differ from what was
 DS>   considered?  Perhaps one such proposal was the one Ward
 DS>   presented after he was no longer IC?

I'm sure they varied from the minimal to the (more) radical.  ;-)
I still think our proposal to be the best for the network.  Perhaps with
these late events, people will be more receptive to making Policy
more realistically amendable.  

Thank for your reply, Dale.  You echo my sentiment 99.99%.

Bob

---