DS>   The requirement at current is for a majority of *ALL*
 DS> RCs.  There are
 DS>   58 RCs.   That means that passage requires 30 YES
 DS> votes.  Because the
 DS>   requirement is for a majority of *ALL* RCs, it is
 DS> effectively the same
 DS>   as when all have voted --- either YES or NO (with those
 DS> not voting
 DS>   assumed to be NO votes).  That is why I say it is
 DS> effectively a 100%
 DS>   quorum requirement.

The logic is flawed on your part... a quorum implies there must be a
*physical* "yes" or "no" vote involved... that a
minimum number of persons have to be -actually involved.  In the case of
simply requiring a
majority, as policy is now, it means all that really -need- to be involved
is 50% +1.  If only 50%+1 have the same oppinion, and voice it , no others
are required to voice an oppinion at all, as the majority is already there.

QUORUM: The number of members of any deliberative or corporate body as is
*NECESSARY*  for the legal transaction of of business, commonly a majority.

For all intents and puposes, under current policy, all that is -necessary-,
is 50% +1 of RC's of the same oppinion to call for an action, with no
further
input required from anybody else, so the effective quorum is 50% +1...  NOT
100% as you imply.

If one looks at the word "quorum" as is intended to be used in
the proposed policy revision, the idea of a quorum is falling way short of
what a quorum commonly is.

 DS>   If we had a quorum requirement of 50%, then passage
 DS> would mean that a
 DS>   majority of the RCs responding would carry the motion
 DS> to referendum --
 DS>   but only if at least 29 (i.e. 50% of 58) actually
 DS> responded to cast a
 DS>   vote.

A 50% +1 quorum put into policy, would be much more acceptable as a
required ammount to persons present to conduct FidoNet business, than the
measly 10% suggested, and would be more in line of what a quorum is
intended to be.

Phil

--- FMail/Win32 1.60