Hi Dale,

 PK> IMHO the key to 2. is solving 1., in that a VERY simple change to P4
 PK> (EG: the  Nodelist entry for Fidonews) would 
 PK> probably have worked and 
 PK> been passed IF it had been the ONLY proposed change. This 

 DS>    You seem to keep forgetting that the first proposal was exactly that.

I disagree. As an RC I only ever saw ONE proposal put forward for us to
vote on and that had TWO parts to it, a change to the Fidonews listing and
the voting quorum change. That entire proposal died because of the second
part (IMHO). It actually achieved the required 50%+1 responses, but they
were not all in the afirmative.

 DS>    It died with no response from anyone.

Not according to those counting the votes and what I observed.

 PK> woud have deomnstrated that chanig policy was possible, and
 PK> people would then have had a clear direction to take for 
 PK> proposing even more changes. But it was killed dead in its 
 PK> tracks by the second proposed change, the modification to 
 PK> voting requirements. THAT was what killed the change... 

 DS>    Perhaps, but that second proposed change did get a lot of people
 DS>    talking and collaborating.   Why it got killed was due to many
 DS>    factors.

I never saw a "second" proposal, only one was ever put forward to
the RC's for voting. If there was a second (or if there was a first that I
did not see) then it was not well advertised.

 PK> Remove items that are contentious from the menu and this
 PK> bird could probably fly...

 DS>   The bird will fly iff the RCs collectively want it to fly.

Rest assured, the RC's I communicated with wanted it to Fly for sure, but
ONLY on the first part of the proposal, they would never accept the second
part.

Cheers............pk.




--- Maximus/2 3.01