-=> On 12-13-03  10:35,  Peter Knapper <=-
 -=> spoke to Michael Grant about region 25 <=-

 PK> Ahem... please note that Ward managed to bring MORE than 50% of the
 PK> RC's into  this conference for this very purpose, the EXACT 

   Which is a good point.

 PK> requirement of current policy. A MAJORITY of RC's is here,
 PK> therefore the section of the proposed change that you refer 
 PK> to above is absolute nonsense.

  Not totally, but you are making a valid point.

 PK> And its that ONE section alone, that will kill the entire 
 PK> proposed changes, regardless of the benefits from the all 
 PK> the rest of the changes, and it will do it before the ink 
 PK> is dry on the paper (to use an old phrase).

 PK> The real issue is that the change proposers will not see it that way
 PK> and  blame others for their failure.

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

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

  So if you do not believe that the quorum requirement is high enough,
  then put your number on the table for consideration by your peers --
  be it 20%, 30%, or even 50%.  But the primary thrust of this proposal
  is to lower the requirement from what is effectively 100% by requiring
  a majority of ALL RCs to request a referendum for change.

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


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:12:40, 13 Dec 2003
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01