-=> On 11-25-03  12:24,  Philip Lozier <=-
 -=> spoke to Dale Shipp about Policy revison <=-

 PL> and if the RC votes "for" the change, the "against" nets 
 PL> are lost in the overall picture.  We could end up with a 
 PL> majority of -regions- voting for a change, but if the 
 PL> actual number of nets that were against were counted, it 
 PL> could show that more nets (equaling the will of more nodes) 
 PL> actually didn't want it.

  You have not understood the voting, as is clear by your example.

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

 PL> Region A votes "YES"

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

 PL> Region B votes "YES"

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

 PL> Region C votes "NO"

  If the situation is as you say -- and if each RC votes according to
  the reports of the NCs under them -- then the total vote would be:
  14 for (2 RCs and 12 NCs)
  15 against (1 RC and 14 NCs).
  proposal fails.



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

  See above.

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

   And that is the way the policy revision document states it.
 
 DS> 8.3  Referendum
 
 DS> they wish to consider a Policy change.  Referendum
 DS> validation requires that a
 DS> 10% minimum of all Regional Coordinators respond.

 PL> Too low a number, by far...

   Your opinion -- I am comfortable with that number (It would be 6 RCs
   at the moment).   If the group of RCs wishes to modify that number in
   this revision document they can do so by consensus.  I would only
   caution that the current requirement is far too stringent.
 
 DS> 8.4  Ratification
 
 DS> 10% minimum of all
 DS> eligible voters (as defined in section 8.1) is required
 DS> for validation.

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

  According to Fidonews, there are 6 ZCs, 59 RCs and 432 NCs (if I
  interpret the term "hosts" correctly).   That equates to 497 (or
  fewer) eligible voters  ( one man = one vote).  The current proposal
  requires at least 50 votes be cast.  You would require that 164 votes
  be cast.  I believe that the former number is achievable but difficult
  and that the second number approaches the impossible stage.   Others
  might have different views, and it is up to the RCs to revise the
  number if they feel it necessary.

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

  That was discussed, but no one could come up with acceptable ways of
  handling the possibility.  I don't feel that a combination of 25 RCs
  and NCs coming together on a possible policy revision to submit for
  consideration is really so likely that frivolous revisions are going
  to flood the system.

 PL> This proposed change to policy is flawed in several respects, and
 PL> should not  even be voted on as is.  As far as the ratification of it 

   I disagree -- but then I have a vested interest in it.  You are
   entitled to your opinion.

 PL> goes, that should be according to policy as it exists now,
 PL> which means a majority of all eligible to vote, RC's *AND* 
 PL> NC's, should be achieved as at least participating voters, 
 PL> with the simple majority of that amount being able to 
 PL> ratify it.  A simple majority of the 17 or so RC's who have 
 PL> so far answered here is not evenm close to being in 
 PL> accordance with current policy.

   It seems that you have misunderstood the process and the existing
   policy.  According to policy this revision will be put to a
   referendum vote when a majority of all RCs respond saying that it
   should be so.   A majority of the 17 or so RCs here is not
   sufficient.   However take note that some RCs have already informed
   the IC that they are in favor of having the referendum on a policy
   revision.

   Once that referendum is called for, it will be voted on.  The
   eligible voters (according to P4.07) are all ICs, ZCs, RCs and NCs
   (but with a one man - one vote caveat).  The measure passes if it
   receives a yes from a majority of those who actually vote -- not of
   all eligible as you stated.


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

   Please reconsider -- and especially reconsider the points where you
   misunderstood what is or what is proposed.

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


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 00:22:50, 26 Nov 2003
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01