This is for everybody, but mainly for the RC's...

Now that the mayhem is under way, it seems obvious that many people have
had their own ideas over the years as to how policy should be changed, and
some have even had little projects of their own, as a hobby, of putting
together policy documents.  Many people probably wrote new policy proposals
for their own amusement, as there really seemed no way for them to ever get
distributed amongst a wide enough body of RC's to ever make it to a serious
level.

Thanks to Ward, the RC's now, for the first time in umpteen years, seem to
have their attention focused on these issues.

Yup.. it has turned into a hotbed of confusion, without a doubt, but what
could everybody expect?  After all... it has been almost a generation since
policy has been changed, (-almost- depending on what part of the world your
from, and what is socially acceptable, not to mention legal), and
for the vast majority of FidoNet, this is entirely new ground.

A few proposals have risen from this, mentions of other ones exist, and god
knows how many more could pop out of the woodwork... it can turn into a
mess real quick.

Here's my thoughts on it, and mind you all, only suggestions...

I think that right now, the RC's as a body, should close the door on any
new submissions "at this point", and should make a statement to
the effect that they are doing so in order to consider what has been put in
front of them... -my- suggestion (-suggestion-) is to put forward the
simplest proposal on the table, with the least ammount of foundation
shifting, to the IC.  After doing that, since it is the -responsibility- of
the RC body to consider changes to policy, the RC's need to organize
themselves for just such matters in the future.

Now... lets look at this a little... it is up to the RC's to innitiate a
change in policy. This is a given.  Having that responsibility, is exactly
that, a responsibility. That means a method for submitting proposed policy
changes to the RC body (as a whole) for consideration must exist.

It is not contrary to policy for the RC body to set a method as to how, or
when, they will recieve proposed changes to policy. I would suggest that
the RC's get together, and set a specific time that they will recieve
proposals. So it isn't an ongoing burden for them, I would say that a cycle
of 18 months would be a good starting point.  Let me explain better... The
RC'c set June 30, 2004 as the next time they will recieve proposals to
consider. All submissions must be put to the RC's between the period of
June 30, 2004 and July 31, 2004.  Any proposals not recieved during that
time period not considered by the RC's... I would say, to avoid a ton of
huge documents, that submissions should be accepted as summaries, with a
-brief- (length set) cover letter explaining the benefits to that
particular change.  That will make it easier for the RC's (or RC Policy
Council should they choose to set one up -hint-) to go through them. After
review, the RC's (or appointed, elected, whatever, council) can contact the
author(s) of the proposal(s) that catch their attention, for
a formal submission (whole policy document, etc...) and solicit
explanations and clarifications on points of the proposal(s) from the
authro(s).  After that, the RC's can then, if they see a proposal with
enough merit, submit one or more of the proposals to the IC (Yes... if
policy is read, it can clearly be seen that the RC's are -not- limited to
only submitting one proposal to the IC, and voting by -all- eligible to
vote in the final stage -can- be on multiple whole documents). This stage
should occur and be completed over a period of say two months, or in the
time scenario given above, by September 30, 2004.

That puts the obligation of responsibility in the RC's lap, only for three
months out of each 18 month period... very little to ask of those who are
responsible for that stage of proposed policy changes... it also gives the
rest of FidoNet the assurance that a mechanism -is- in place for such
matters, that policy change -is- something that -can- be done, and insures
that it won't be our children, or grandchildren (based on how ancient any
of us may be already), who will be deciding the -next- policy change.

By setting a -schedule-, it also relieves the burden the RC's would have of
continuous proposal after proposals bombarding them.

It's a win/win sittuation in a scenario as I described... FidoNet is
assured a mechanism for serious policy proposal considerations, and the
RC's are only -burdened- for a limited time on such matters, and get at
least a 15 month period to "enjoy their hobby" before the ball is
hit to their side of the outfield again :)

Further, once the ball is hit to the IC, the rest of the process...
notification, discussion, and voting... shouldn't take more than an
additional 3 months, bringing the -entire- cycle to no more than 6 months
out of any 18 month period.

NONE of the above is contrary to policy, so it can be done that way if the
RC's decide they want to do it that way, and nobody... no ZC, IC,
ANYBODY... can say boo about it, if that is what the RC's want to do.

These are just my suggestions, submitted for the consideration of the RC's,
and I am in no way saying "You have to do it, or you're not good
RC's"... rather, I am suggesting this, or something similar, as a
mechanism to be put in place where everybody wins, all the way around.

I think it would be a good idea.

Phil

--- FMail/Win32 1.60