-=> On 12-18-03  06:35,  Bob Short <=-
 -=> spoke to All about Alterations? <=-

 BS> 8.1.1

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

 BS> In the ratification stage, each FidoNet coordinator at and above
 BS> Network Coordinator is entitled to one vote.  In the referendum stage,
 BS> only Regional Coordinators may vote.  Echomail Coordinators are
 BS> ineligible to vote.

   It is not clear to me why you would drop the definition of who is
   eligible to initiate a policy change consideration.   Section 8.2.1
   of our amendment requires that definition to be there,

quote:
8.2.1

A referendum on Policy modification is initiated when a 5% minimum, in
any combination, all eligible voters (as defined in section 8.1) give
notice to the International Coordinator that they wish to consider an
amendment to, or a new version of Policy.

   I also saw a statement that suggested a possible misinterpretation of
   "above" NC to mean only the RC.

   If we are going to consider word-smithing this section again, I might
   also suggest that the statement "Echomail Coordinators are ineligible
   to vote" (as copied over from existing policy) might also have a
   misinterpretation.

   Here is my suggested wording for this paragraph, which takes into
   account all of the above:
   ====
   Each person holding a position of IC, ZC, RC or NC is eligible to
   join with others in the initiation phase of policy amendment and is
   also eligible to vote on the ratification of policy amendments.  They
   have one vote at each of these stages independent of the number of
   positions held.  In the referendum stage, only Regional Coordinators
   may vote.  The position of Echomail Coordinator is not granted a
   vote in any stage of the policy amendment process.

 BS> -----------------------------------------------------------------------
 BS> ------ 
 BS> A little clearer on this next section:

 BS> From:

 BS> 8.1.2

 BS> A Coordinator holding the positions of both Network and Regional
 BS> Coordinator may cast only one vote according to the combined will of
 BS> both the Network and the Region served.

 BS> To:

 BS> A Coordinator holding multiple positions may cast only one vote
 BS> according to the will of the combined areas served.  IE: A Network
 BS> Coordinator,  who also holds a Regional Coordinator position, must vote
 BS> according to the consensus of both the nodes in the Network and the
 BS> Regional Independents.
 BS> -----------------------------------------------------------------------

    If the RCs want to put the word "must" in there, they can do so.
    However, we had considerable discussion about that.  No matter how
    much we believe that an RC "must" gather a consensus, there is no
    way to force that to happen.   I would not use the word, but would
    would instead use "should" or "expected to".

 BS> ------
 BS> Suggestions on quora?

  Up to the RCs  -- but let me say that as one of the proponents for
  no or low quorum requirements, I am getting convinced that they are a
  good idea --- so long as they do not get so high as to be a bar to
  change.

  Personally, I see no reason to stifle amendment proposals by making
  the initiation requirement much higher.   As it is worded now, it
  requires about 25 *Cs to sign a proposed change in order for it to get
  considered by the RCs.  That is more than we had participating in this
  proposal, although I would hope that if it were needed, we could have
  gotten more signatures.

  IMO, it is the next number for referendum that is the most radical
  departure from existing policy.  P4.07 effectively has a quorum
  requirement of 100%, with all not heard from assumed to be against. We
  are hearing strong voices that the 10% (i.e. 6 RCs) figure is too low,
  and no voices who are defending that number or who are arguing that it
  is too high. I think that what we need is for the RCs to say what
  number they are comfortable with.   Peter wants at least 50%.   There
  is such a quorum here -- but only because of extraordinary efforts on
  the part of the IC.

  As to the final quorum requirement, we have raised that from 0% to
  10%.  The 10% figure seemed high based on observations of general
  participation in Fidonet elections.   Perhaps when the electorate is
  the *Cs versus the general population, 10% (i.e. about 50) or even 20%
  would not be too high.  OTOH, I would be surprised if we could get 50%
  of all *Cs to respond to anything.   In fact, I would not be surprised
  if 10-20% of the *Cs do not really exist.

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


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 00:09:44, 19 Dec 2003
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01