Hi Dale,

 DS>   As the originator of all of this, and as one who originally spoke
 DS>   against high quorum requirements -- let me say that what the numbers
 DS>   are in the document voted on is totally up to the body of RCs at this
 DS>   point.   If you and enough others feel it is necessary to raise the
 DS>   quorum requirements, then that is not only your right but your duty.

Regarding this issue, I have had a LOT of thought about this, and I cannot
see how the RC's can change a proposed document. Policy states the RC's
must consider a TOTAL document, but does not say they can MODIFY part of
that document. Now I suppose the RC's could reject a document, and then
propose their own version of that document, but then they are not ratifying
a proposal, they are generating it.

Now I may be wrong, but can you please provide me with a reasoning for you
saying this is possible. I must be missing something somewhere...

 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).

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

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

Dale, the biggest difficulty facing people asking for change, is that they
MUST take into account ALL possible affeced parties (that means 100% of
Fidoent Sysops), not just the desires of those asking for the change. Yes,
I realise its a very difficult task to find all of this out, but in
essence, thats exactly what they need to do. They need to look into a
crystal ball and ensure their request is not going to meet with a negative
response from ANYONE. Thats the best way to guarantee success, its also why
no-one will ever get 100% of what they want.

If the current proposal only included a modifcation of the section of
Policy relating to the Fidonet newsletter/editor, then once a quorum was
reached, it would have passed quicker than a rat up a sewer, and thereby
deonstrated to Fidonet as whole that the process DOES work, and made it
MUCH easier for future changes to work. Instead its been complicated by at
least one rather contentious section.

Regards........pk.


--- Maximus/2 3.01