-=> On 12-10-03  11:10,  Janis Kracht <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Re: Summery <=-

 JK> Hello Dale,
 
 > I say again -- what was presented was agreed upon as a document in
 > total by the signatories.  It was not said (and was not true) that
 > every person on that list agreed with every line, word and number.

 JK> When you read a document that is preceeded with text like:

 JK> " Following is a summery of proposed changes to Policy 4.07, as
 JK> discussed and agreed upon by these and other contributors: "

 JK> it DOES appear to state that 'every person on that list agreed with
 JK> every  line, word and number'.  There is no modifying statement 
 JK> showing otherwise.

   I read it to say that we (the list of names there) agreed to the
   document as a whole, even though we might disagree with parts of it.
   Those who did not want their names there could have had them taken
   off.   I don't recall if or how many participants did so, but I see
   that xxCarol says only one did. If anyone wants their name removed
   now as a supporter of the document in the whole, I'm sure that Bob
   would take their name off of the list if he were asked.

   In any case, what is important (IMO) is that the document exists as
   the work of the group at the time.  It was and is being presented to
   the RCs so that they might consider whether or not to put it to the
   vote by the eligible voters (i.e. all *Cs).  If they want to make
   changes, they can.  It would be easy to change the quorum
   percentages, but I would caution against establishing a quorum that
   cannot be reasonably met.

   We do seem to have a majority of the RCs present here.  Why not have
   a poll taken of them to see what they think on the quorum issue.

   Is it worth floating a poll question such as the one below?  Would
   you reword it in any way?

   POLL QUESTION: Do you think that the quorum percentages are
   a. too low
   b. acceptable
   c. too high
   [the percentages and numbers for quorum are:
      Initiation stage:  5% = 25 *Cs
      Referendum stage: 10% =  6 RCs
    Ratification stage: 10% = 50 *Cs
    From the last issue of FidoNews:
    There is    1 IC (who is also a ZC).
    There are   6 ZCs (at least one of whom is also an RC)
    There are  58 RCs (no idea how many might also be NCs)
    There are 436 NCs.
    Hence total eligible voters for purposes of Initiation and of
    Ratification is 499 or fewer.]
                              
 JK> Personally, I would have left out  the phrase "agreed upon"
 JK> altogether.. 

  But we did agree on it at the time.

 JK> And THAT's why I said it is misleading.

 JK> People who were not in the echo for the entire discussion 
 JK> have no idea of how the discussions evolved, etc., how the 
 JK> document developed, or who was in favor of what... or who 
 JK> was against what.

   Understand -- there were provisions that I spoke against that
   ended up in the document.  Nevertheless, I agreed to the document as
   being the best proposal we could produce.

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






... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 00:39:30, 11 Dec 2003
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01