DS>>   Think LDD, JK, R12.

 PL>> Precisely why I believe that the low quorum proposed is
 PL>> agenda based... I won't explain further, YET... those with

 DS>    Not agenda based, but based on looking and observing
 DS> the turmoil
 DS>    caused by that particular crisis.

What crisis???  I saw a justified action in the removal of an RC for
defying policy to the fullest, as that region has a history of doing. They
created their own crisis... justifying a proposed change to policy based on
that "sittuation", which allows a very minimal in participation
to change policy, is indeed saying it is agenda based.  It makes it obvious
to anybody who isn't retarded, or blind, that a region such as R12, with
very minimal support, could push a policy referendum through to try and
achieve the "free for all" environment in FidoNet that they
desire.  It was like a chain reaction back then... defy policy, distribute
an alternate nodelist, list nodes from here, there and everywhere, do
whatever they want... until push came to shove and it got shoved in their
faces.  Hmmmm... next step???  Let's push a policy change movement, and
tell everybody how great it will be to make it easier to ammend policy in
the future... put on the disguise real good... but hey... let's keep the
quorum reeeeeeeal low, so when it passes, we can IMMEDIATELY push for the
changes we want, and have our free for all where we can do whatever we
want!!!

The timing gave it away... ;>  OF COURSE there was an agenda on the
parts of -some- of the people involved.

 DS> It was my hope (and
 DS> still is) that
 DS>    rather than have entire groups effectively splintering
 DS> off from
 DS>    Fidonet, that compromise could be had and that changes
 DS> could be made
 DS>    within the existing policy.

Hey... I'm all for making the process of changing policy easier, and on a
point by point basis, and all in all, I feel this current proposal would be
fine, if NOT for the low numbers that could allow for "splinter"
groups to push for frivolous changes, with very little support, on a whim.
Keeping that low quorum in place however, that allows for small, MINORITY,
groups to push major proposals for all of Fidonet every time they get a bug
up their ass, is something that will make me fight tooth and nail to make
sure it never goes through... raise the quorum to an acceptable level (as
Thom put it, one that -requires- the participation of more than one zone to
call for a referendum), and I'll support it fully.

 PL>> eyes will see, and those with ears will hear, and unless
 PL>> that quorum thing is increased significantly, I can assure
 PL>> that this version of proposed policy changes will crash and
 PL>> burn straight into the 'ol John Douglas.  When the light
 PL>> does get turned on, there won't be a single affirmative
 PL>> vote for a referendum outside of Zone 1.

 DS>    What would you have the quorum requirements be?  Bear
 DS> in mind that
 DS>    experience has shown voter turn out for fido elections
 DS> to run in the
 DS>    10 to 25% range much of the time.

A number that would require the RC's of more than one zone to call for the
referendum... A full 2/3rds of eligible voters for ratification.  2/3 for
ratification is a MUST... Every SysOp coming into Fidonet is bound by
policy, therefore a CLEAR MAJORITY of ALL must be required (not of just who
care to show up and vote) if it is to be binding to 100% of FidoNet.  As to
the voting turnouts... provisions should be made that REQUIRE all eligible
*C voters to participate, with at least a recorded ABSTAIN vote, or resign
their hats.

If this did pass with the low quorum in place, and drastic changes were
made where only 10% voted, and the results were based on say 60% of them
voting for those changes (6% of total eleigible voters), I would never,
EVER, honor that new policy, and FidoNet would have another very vocal
rebel on its hands, until I got excommunicated.  NO WAY IN HELL, would I
feel that a vote consisting of only 6% of the eligible voters would in ANY
WAY dictate the future of FidoNet policy. Even a full 15% in favor of the
change would be far, far, too low to dictate something that 100% of FidoNet
members would have to abide by... 25% is still even ridiculous... GET REAL.

Phil

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+