Hello Dale.

25 Dec 03 02:10, you wrote to me:

 MG>> That means NC's, RC's and ZC's all get a vote. The new
 MG>> proposal would take away the NC and ZC votes in the
 MG>> referendum. Then the new proposal also adds a third,
 MG>> unnecessary vote in order for the new policy to be
 MG>> ratified. It's sort of like saying, do we now accept the
 MG>> referendum vote, or not? Under current policy, if the
 MG>> referendum passes, then it is ratified. No ifs ands or buts.

 DS>    You are misunderstanding what the new proposal is saying.  It
 DS>    does not take away NC and ZC votes.

From Bob's own summary:
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Proposal to amend FidoNet Policy version 4.07


**Remove the following sentence:

(There are no differences between this version and 4.06 except the statement
above.)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

[...]

8.1  Eligibility to vote

8.1.1

In the initiation and ratification stages, each FidoNet coordinator at and
above Network Coordinator is entitled to one vote.  In the referendum stage,
only Regional Coordinators may vote.  Echomail Coordinators can not vote.

[...]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

 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.

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

 DS>    In both the current policy and in the new proposal the RCs decide
 DS>    whether or not to have a referendum.

Again, that's wrong. The new proposal means that all *C's together under a
10% quorum, decide on initiation, then the RC's vote in the referendum. The
cart is being put before the horse.

 DS>    The new proposal adds an additional step which allows for a group of
 DS>    *Cs (5% or more) to put a policy amendment on the table.  When that
 DS>    happens, the RCs must have a vote as to whether or not to put the
 DS>    policy amendment up for a vote by the entire *C structure.   This is
 DS>    the new step.

It clarly stated that the initiation stage is that first stage, then the
referendum proceeds, and the RC's are the only ones who vote in the
referendum stage. The referendum currently allows /every/ *C to vote, with
the RC's only initiating the process. It's been turned upside down, and the
end result is worse that what we have under current policy. If the
referendum stage is not monkeyed about with, then there is no need for a
third "ratification" stage.

 MG>> IMHO, the subsections 8.3, Eligibility to Vote, 8.4, Voting
 MG>> Mechanism, 8.5, Voting on a Whole Document, and 8.6,
 MG>> Decision of Vote, when taken together describes the most
 MG>> fair and democratic process we have ever seen in Fidonet,
 MG>> and therefore should not be changed at all, because it
 MG>> cannot be improved upon.

 DS>    Obviously, I disagree since I was the one who initially put forth a
 DS>    proposal for changing this procedure.  The fact is that the current
 DS>    policy has a tremendous barrier to any change, and that is what needs
 DS>    improvement.

The only barrier is at the initiation stage, and therefore that is the only
stage that needs changing. The entire process is not flawed at all; only
one stage of it is. The rest of the section from 8.3 down is patently fair
as it is and should /not/ be changed.

 MG>> It adds one thing to make it easier to /initiate/ a
 MG>> referendum, yet takes away democracy from a large number of
 MG>> *C's in the network when it comes to the actual vote. No;
 MG>> IMO, this does not make the process more democratic.

 DS>    It does not take away democracy or remove the voting power from
 DS>    anyone.   You misunderstand the new proposal if you think that is
 DS>    true.

The proposal mentions a referendum, and that referendum only allows RC's to
vote. That takes away voting power when compared to the current referendum.

 MG>> of dealing with repeated referenda. The end result would be
 MG>> that the process would become a joke, and the votes would
 MG>> be automatically rejected without the membership taking a
 MG>> serious look at the proposal.

 DS>   There are many who said that the current policy is a joke, and that no
 DS>   attempt to make any change would ever get serious attention.  Those
 DS>   same people are advocating simply ignoring policy and doing whatever
 DS>   they want to do.   I do not believe that is the way to go, but it is
 DS>   happening and will continue to happen unless policy is changed.

Well, if we're going to change policy, we ought to do it right, and not
change sections that are already reasonable and fair, just because we think
we need /something/ changed. Fix the problem subsections, but leave the
rest alone. We don't need wholesale changes when part of the current
process is already very fair and democratic as is now.


--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1