Hi, Carol!

24 Nov 02 13:40, Carol Shenkenberger said to Alex Shakhaylo:

 AS>> and the only th will have a value will be the opinion of those,
 AS>> who decided to partic pate.

 CS> That has validity but still, one needs a little care when dealing with
 CS> issues that do not affect your own zone/region but *do* affect others.

Sure. That's why everything should be discussed first.

 CS> Imagine a line in P4 that requires the zoneseg come from the listed
 CS> ZC.  If that one flew by your head, take a gander at Z6.  The zoneseg
 CS> comes from Anatoli not Bin Li.  If one didnt know about this, one
 CS> would easily pass it by a majority vote.  Z6 would lose however, it's
 CS> last bastion of nodelist corrections.

I don't think the policy should order  who in particular should compile
nodelist. It only should state that *Cs are responsible for the process.

 CS> Thats just a microcosm item.  There are other things that can cause
 CS> havoc.  I'm not saying majority rule is bad, but that there are other
 CS> aspects in it you may not realize and which wont impact your larger
 CS> region until it's far too late to save the smaller ones impacted.

 CS> There is no perfect answer to this.

You should not apprehend our regions as something solid and monolithic.
We have here disagreements as well as every community has. Even my
initiative was responded in several completely different ways :-)

 AS>> than to run fidowide voting.  After regions voted we only should
 AS>> accou the regions' results and get the whole picture.

 CS> Would you have the whole picture though?

I'm afraid the whole picture is not possible in principle.

But our task is to find the most suitable approach. May be not
at one time, but step-by-step.

 CS> 3 Z5 sysops say no.  1500 Z2
 CS> sysops say yes.  Do you really know?  Those 3 Z5 sysops represent 75%
 CS> of the active Z5 base.  If they all vote no and the other 1 doesnt get
 CS> the message so doesnt vote, it could be an issue that would destroy Z5
 CS> operations.

Hm .. I can't imagine that operations can be destroyed in such a way.
I'm sure that our regions will operate independently of ANY policy
changes.

 CS> But, you'll never know because 3 against 1500 just doesnt
 CS> make sense unless you've really checked into whats happening or know
 CS> something about how the zones both are the same and yet different.

 CS> You may not have been aware for example that Z6's nodelist isnt
 CS> handled by the Z6C.  Z6 is the only zone where that happens as
 CS> 'policy' but not the only one with a backup Zseg maker.

 CS> Please understand I am not beating on you.  I am trying hard to
 CS> explain that not all is as simple as it seems.  There needs to be as
 CS> much acceptance of our differences as possible to make this all work.

Sure. But I don't mean to change the policy on a whim. Before any changes
pass to voting they should be stated and discussed. We already have the
echo (this echo), where proposal can be prepared.  So you can influence
changes before they pass to voting. After all something like FTSC can
be managed to prepare proposal with a condition that every zone partici-
pated in a committee. The details can be discussed.

 CS> I for one did not realize how much problem there could be to a zone,
 CS> in sysop-wide voting.  I still believe this is the best method but I
 CS> know the flaws.  Region wide voting is very valid, but weighting of
 CS> those votes based on size (which relates to number responding) can be
 CS> just as much of a problem Z1-6 wide.

(sigh) I don't know the way without the flows. The only that makes me
to believe in my proposal is the fact that we have nothing to compete
for :-)

Bye, Sinc, Alex

--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1