Dale,

 BS>> To:

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

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

It's defined in the following section that you quote.  The 'eligibility'
section deals with voting, which wouldn't be required to initiate the
referendum stage.  That would only require a meeting of 25+/- minds.

 DS> quote:
 DS> 8.2.1

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

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

"at and above".  :)

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

I could live with that... means the same.  :)  I do believe we need to keep that
part, in some clear wording... maybe adding "in either stage".

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

I believe we should retain a separation of the several eligibility and process
sections.  This will make it easier to make future changes to individual parts
as needed/desired.  The 'one vote' part is in 8.1.2.

 BS>> A little clearer on this next section:

 BS>> Coordinator,  who also holds a Regional Coordinator position, must vote
 BS>> according to the consensus of both the nodes in the Network
 BS>> and the Regional Independents.

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

Reasonable.  I do recall that discussion... I just wish we could get some RC's
in on this... 

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

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

Agreed...

 DS>   Personally, I see no reason to stifle amendment proposals by making
 DS>   the initiation requirement much higher.

I wouldn't want to go over 5-20-30 respectively.

 DS>   As it is worded now, it requires about 25 *Cs to sign a proposed change
 DS>   in order for it to get considered by the RCs...

It's certainly a higher figure than predently in force, considering there isn't
one.  ;-)  I don't see how anyone can object to adding an Initiatiion requirement
that effectively eliminates the possiblity of frivolous attempts to amend Policy.

 DS>   IMO, it is the next number for referendum that is the most radical
 DS>   departure from existing policy...  Peter wants at least 50%.   There
 DS>   is such a quorum here -- but only because of extraordinary efforts on
 DS>   the part of the IC.

I bett we can find a happy medium, and I don't mean Jean Dixon.  ;-)

 DS>   As to the final quorum requirement, we have raised that from 0% to
 DS>   10%.  The 10% figure seemed high based on observations of general
 DS>   participation in Fidonet elections.  ...

I don't think it unreasonable to raise the bar on ratification, as that is the
most important phase of the process.  Not TOO high of course.

Remember, we're proposing that the votes depend on the /responding/
voters, and abstains not count.

Bob

---