-=> On 12-14-03  09:45,  Peter Knapper <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: region 25 <=-

 PK> Regarding this issue, I have had a LOT of thought about this, and I
 PK> cannot  see how the RC's can change a proposed document. Policy 
 PK> states the RC's must consider a TOTAL document, but does 

   Actually, it says that the ratification vote by all of the *Cs must
   be on a total document.   The statement about what the RCs do to call
   for a referendum is less clear.  Nevertheless, what is only a cut and
   paste away from a total document has been put on the table.

 PK> not say they can MODIFY part of that document. Now I
 PK> suppose the RC's could reject a document, and then propose 
 PK> their own version of that document, but then they are not 
 PK> ratifying a proposal, they are generating it.

  Current P4 does not say where the proposal needs to come from.  If you
  (as an RC) wish to take what was produced by the working group and
  modify it (along with collaboration with the other RCs), then you may
  do so.

 PK> Now I may be wrong, but can you please provide me with a 
 PK> reasoning for you saying this is possible. I must be 
 PK> missing something somewhere...
 
  I hope that it is possible that the RCs can and will tell the IC that
  they wish to put this proposal up to a referendum vote -- or that they
  will say "modify it by ...." and put it up to a vote.   If it is a
  consensus of the RCs that the document has merit except that the
  quorum requirements are wrong -- then they ought to change them.

 DS>   I would only say that the reason no previous effort has gotten this
 DS>   far (to my knowledge) is that the current quorum requirement is
 DS>   effectively 100% (i.e. the current policy is the same as if all RCs
 DS>   are assumed to have voted and not voting is assumed to be a vote
 DS>   against).

 PK> My reading of P4 is that >50% of all RC's must vote YES to 
 PK> a proposed new document to then be able to ask the IC to 
 PK> call for a referendum. Non-Votes, Abstentions and Negatives 
 PK> are taken as NO. That seems to match what you say above but 
 PK> it phrases it a different manner. 

   Yes --- that is correct.


 PK> I have no issues with this, I am not aware of a democratic body
 PK> anywhere that  allows a change to proceed with a less than 50%
 PK> afirmative  count (and some require more than 50%). Often its require 
 PK> the collaboration of 2 parties to be able to reach the 
 PK> required level. Yes, I know Fidonet is not a Democracy, 
 PK> however for the purposes of Policy change, Fidonet 
 PK> specified a democratic process to be followed. I see no 
 PK> need to change that.

  The need to change the procedure is because the procedure has
  effectively prevented any viable attempts at change until now.


 PK> Dale, the biggest difficulty facing people asking for change, is that
 PK> they  MUST take into account ALL possible affeced parties (that 
 PK> means 100% of Fidoent Sysops), not just the desires of 
 PK> those asking for the change. Yes, I realise its a very 
 PK> difficult task to find all of this out, but in essence, 

   We hope that will be done to the best of the ability of those who
   represent us -- which means you and your peers.

 PK> thats exactly what they need to do. They need to look into
 PK> a crystal ball and ensure their request is not going to 
 PK> meet with a negative response from ANYONE. Thats the best 
 PK> way to guarantee success, its also why no-one will ever get 
 PK> 100% of what they want.

   If anything is crystal clear, it is the fact that nothing will get
   100% support from everyone.  There will always be someone with a
   negative response, and always someone with a contrary opinion.   All
   we can expect is that what is done is in the best interest of the
   group as a whole.

 PK> If the current proposal only included a modifcation of the 
 PK> section of Policy relating to the Fidonet 
 PK> newsletter/editor, then once a quorum was reached, it would 

   That was tried more than two years ago -- and was met with a roar of
   silence and lack of interest.

 PK> have passed quicker than a rat up a sewer, and thereby
 PK> deonstrated to Fidonet as whole that the process DOES work, 
 PK> and made it MUCH easier for future changes to work. Instead 
 PK> its been complicated by at least one rather contentious 
 PK> section.

  Be specific please.  What section?  The quorum numbers?  Suggest what
  would be acceptable to you.

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


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 23:39:56, 13 Dec 2003
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01