Hello Dale.

26 Dec 03 00:08, you wrote to me:

 MG>> Coordinators can not vote.
 MG>> [...]

 DS>    That is a correct quote.  But it is not taking anything away.  It is
 DS>    adding.   Under current existing policy, only RCs  vote in the
 DS>    referendum stage (i.e. telling the IC to put a proposed new policy up
 DS>    for a general vote).

That is not the /referendum/ stage; that is the /initiation/ stage! The
referendum is the actual vote on the policy document itself. Current policy
allows every *C to vote in a policy referendum, your proposed policy takes
it away from NC's and ZC's in that stage.

 DS>    Our proposed new policy has not changed who votes at this stage.  It
 DS>    was and still is the RCs.

It has. It has changed the initiation and the referendum stage, and added a
third, unnecessary stage.

 DS>    We have added an initiation stage, which allows for all *Cs to
 DS>    participate by forcing a policy amendment to be considered by the
 DS>    RCs.

Hello?? There already /is/ an initiation stage in current policy! Just
change that, and the rest can stay as it is.

 DS> That is giving additional voice and power towards the grass
 DS>    roots.

It's not giving much, when it takes away in another stage.

 DS>>    In both the current policy and in the new proposal, the policy change
 DS>>    is voted on by *ALL* *Cs.  The new proposal adds a quorum requirement
 DS>>    to this final vote.

 MG>> Only on intiation and ratification. The referendum vote is
 MG>> left entirely to the RC's. Then we second-guess the RC's
 MG>> with a third "ratification" vote. It's a rediculous
 MG>> process, if you ask me. What was wrong with leaving the
 MG>> referendum as it was; with every *C voting, and with
 MG>> ratification being automatic with a majority vote?

 DS>    Because the referendum was *NOT* with every *C voting.  It was only
 DS>    the RCs who voted at that stage.

That is /not/ the referendum! That is the initiation. It says so right in
the title of subsection 8.1. Do you have trouble comprehending the
document?

 DS>  The group of all *Cs votes at the final ratification stage -- which is
 DS> exactly what is true under current policy.

You have added that rediculous and unnecessary stage because you have
/ruined/ the referendum process. In any referendum, be it on Fidonet policy
or a political referendum, ratification is automatic with the results of
the vote. You are not supposed to second-guess a referendum vote.

 MG>> stage, then the referendum proceeds, and the RC's are the
 MG>> only ones who vote in the referendum stage. The referendum
 MG>> currently allows /every/ *C to vote, with the RC's only

 DS>    Not true.  Only the RCs vote in the referendum stage under current
 DS>    policy.

Go back and re-read policy. It's clear that you have no clue about what it
actually says.

 MG>> initiating the process. It's been turned upside down, and
 MG>> the end result is worse that what we have under current
 MG>> policy. If the referendum stage is not monkeyed about with,

 DS>    It is not being monkeyed with -- except to make it easier for
 DS>    something to pass that stage and get to a final vote.

You have changed something that did not need changing. You changed it just
because you wanted /something/ changed. /Something/ could have been changed
quite effectively without ruining a perfectly good democratic process
that's already described in current policy. That's monkeying around with
the process, in my books.


--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1