-=> 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, there was
 PK> just  total confusion over WHICH document was being voted on. Too 
 PK> many options were posted and that led to some confusion. My 

   There was one major proposal that was being published as the
   consensus of a large group of workers.  Others did float other
   possibilities, but there was never really more than one document
   under consideration.

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

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

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

  Yep, that is what we did.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   Difficult to squelch discussion in any fido echo.

 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 
 PK> ask 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.

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

 PK> I think the above would have a much better chance at success than what
 PK> we  actually experienced. The failure was due to a lack of YES 
 PK> votes, mainly because of the NO's, but also due to the 
 PK> limited responses. If we can make the next attempt a good 
 PK> clean run at the tape, we just might get there with the 
 PK> right words put forward...
 
  What you outline is what the presenting group attempted to do.  I
  don't see how we could have done anything else.

 ml> the first one i posted
 ml> was nothing than just the snooze editor address change...

 PK> Every RC I talked to indicated they would have voted YES to 
 PK> that. Unfortunately I only received replies from about 25% 
 PK> of them.....;-(

  Then why didn't they even respond to that proposal when it was
  presented to them more than  three years ago -- before the last
  proposal even began.

 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 to work.

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

                        dale (at) min (dot) net
                              (1:261/1466)



... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 00:08:20, 04 Jun 2004
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01