Actually... reading more, there are some other issues...

 DS> Network and Regional Coordinators function as the
 DS> representatives of the rank
 DS> and file members of FidoNet, and as such are expected to
 DS> solicit the opinions
 DS> of their member nodes, and vote accordingly.

Network Coordinators represent the "rank and file" members of
FidoNet, not Regional Coordinators.  The above indicates that the NC's get
the oppinion of the nodes, then report to the RC's... this is not
neccesary, as RC's don't vote for the NC's... the NC's have had their own
vote in the past, and this possibly opens to possible interpretation that
only
the RC's will vote according to the results the NC's gather. Not good, IMO.
This can sway actual outcomes of "the will of all" areas of
FidoNet, as one region may have a certain for the change, and if the RC
votes "for" the change, the "against" nets are lost in
the overall picture.  We could end up with a majority of -regions- voting
for a change, but if the actual number of nets that were against were
counted, it could show that more nets (equaling the will of more nodes)
actually didn't want it.

Region A = 3 nets... 2 vote for, 1 votes against:

Region A votes "YES"

Region B = 9 nets... 6 for, 3 against:

Region B votes "YES"

Region C = 14 nets... 4 for, 10 against:

Region C votes "NO"

According to an RC vote based on the results given by the NC's as above,
the outcome would be that the policy is ratified, even though the actual
numbers would be 12 nets for ratification, and 14 against, whereas the
policy should *NOT* be ratified if the true results, and will of FidoNet,
were to be reflected.

The NC's, on behalf of their nets, have their *OWN* vote, and that is the
way it should remain, and exactly for the reason I stated above.



 DS> These procedures are also used to impeach a Zone
 DS> Coordinator.  (see section
 DS> 8.7)



 DS> 8.3  Referendum

 DS> A vote to ratify amendments to, or new versions of,
 DS> Policy is mandated when
 DS> a majority of Regional Coordinators responding to a
 DS> referendum, indicate that
 DS> they wish to consider a Policy change.  Referendum
 DS> validation requires that a
 DS> 10% minimum of all Regional Coordinators respond.

Too low a number, by far...

 DS> 8.4  Ratification

 DS> 8.4.2

 DS> A Policy amendment is considered in force if, at the end
 DS> of the balloting
 DS> period, it receives a majority of affirmative votes.  A
 DS> 10% minimum of all
 DS> eligible voters (as defined in section 8.1) is required
 DS> for validation.

FAR, FAR too low a percentage... I would say that at least one third of the
total number of all NC's and RC's should be required to ratify a change in
policy.

 DS> For
 DS> example, if there are 600 coordinators, a minimum of 60
 DS> must vote to validate
 DS> the stage.  If 100 cast ballots, then at least 51 must
 DS> vote yes to declare
 DS> the amendment in force.

FAR, FAR, too low... let's, using the example number above, that 60 out of
600 voted, then only 31 could change policy document as representatives of
all of FidoNet.  I think it ridiculous.


I understand the want for an easier method for ammending, or changing
portions of, policy, but it has to be more realistic than this for me if I
am ever to support it, and not publicly speak against it.

Another provision -not- added should be for limiting how often this process
can occur.  Once a year should be it, otherwise any time a small handful
(at least by the ridiculously low numbers mentioned above) of those
eligible get a bug up their rumps decide they want to push for something,
we'll be going through it. The numbers need to be higher to prevent a
"free for all" in policy wars.

This proposed change to policy is flawed in several respects, and should
not even be voted on as is.  As far as the ratification of it goes, that
should be according to policy as it exists now, which means a majority of
all eligible to vote, RC's *AND* NC's, should be achieved as at least
participating voters, with the simple majority of that amount being able to
ratify it.  A simple majority of the 17 or so RC's who have so far answered
here is not evenm close to being in accordance with current policy.

At this point, unless changes are made, my oppinion is "nay" to
this proposed change, and I encourage those with foresight, and common
sense, to react the same way.

Phil

--- FMail/Win32 1.60+