-=> On 12-24-03  11:12,  Michael Grant <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Proposal <=-

 MG> Wrong; the RC's only /initiate/ the referendum. The current policy
 MG> allows one  vote for every *C in the network in a policy referendum. 
 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.

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

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

   In both the current policy and in the new proposal the RCs decide
   whether or not to have a referendum.  What is being changed there is
   to lower the quorum requirement from what is effectively 100% to
   something lower.  The number for the quorum requirement in the new
   proposal as it has been published is 10%, but if the RCs decide to
   raise that number they may do so.

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



 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.

   Obviously, I disagree since I was the one who initially put forth a
   proposal for changing this procedure.  The fact is that the current
   policy has a tremendous barrier to any change, and that is what needs
   improvement.
 
 DS>  By adding the possibility that the NCs can play a role in initiation, we
 DS> are making the process more democratic (i.e. closer to the end user
 DS> sysop) than it is now.

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

 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.

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

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



... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:45:39, 25 Dec 2003
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01