ML> excuse me... i was there... i didn't see thom doing 
 ML> anything to sabotage the effort... if anything, it was 
 ML> probably i who sabotaged the effort by posting several 
 ML> documents for the RCs to choose from and thus confusing 
 ML> them...

 DS>   One might also say that Ward sabotaged the effort by his threats
 DS> to   the RCs as to what would happen if they did not vote.  Or by
 DS> any one   else who raised objections to the procedure.

yes, there was that, too... in fact, i seem to recall one RC stating that
they were there under duress and would not vote or some such...

 DS>   In fact, what really happened was that in spite of those negative
 DS>   contributions a vote was collected, a majority of those voting
 DS> were in   favor of a change in policy, but not enough of the RCs
 DS> voted for   change to meet the requirement of a majority of ALL RCs
 DS> -- which is   the primary thing that the new policy was attempting
 DS> to change. 

i'm not sure i heard about an actual vote taking place... i'm also not
aware of the "primary" item having been to alter the policy
change mechanism... i posted two documents for consideration... my proposed
4.08a mainly removed the address for the snooze editor from paragraph
1.3.1... my proposed 4.08b was more inline with what others had done with
the added benefit that i had updated the index at the end where they
hadn't...

the reasoning, as pointed out and agreed to by many was that changing
paragraph 1.3.1 was a nice simple change that should be easy to have done.
once that was done, there was a precedent that policy /could/ be changed
when many said that it couldn't... once that was done, _then_ the other
change could be presented and another vote taken... once of those crawl
before you walk things...

 DS>   I also believe that more RCs voted that had ever voted on any
 DS> previous   attempt at a policy change -- but it was not enough.

funny thing is that i do seem to recall statements to that effect but i
don't know where and never saw anything official about it either...

)\/(ark