Text 10121, 74 rader
Skriven 2013-08-31 03:03:40 av Ulrich Schroeter (2:244/1120)
  Kommentar till text 10106 av Dale Shipp (1:261/1466.0)
Ärende: Policy change
=====================
Hi Dale,

Friday August 30 2013 00:12, you wrote to me:

 DS>  -=> On 08-29-13  15:21,  Ulrich Schroeter <=-
 DS>  -=> spoke to Michiel Van Der Vlist about Internet access - Fidonet
 DS> <=-
 DS> You seem to have a lot of good ideas, and enthuiasm -- good luck to
 DS> you.

 MV>> You conveniently skip a number of steps....

 US>> the two potential show stoppers known from current Policy
 US>> revision is the proposal before IC (solution: bring all ZC's to
 US>> accept proposal) and the 2nd one, to receive 51% of all
 US>> votes from the casted votes out of the group of *C structure at
 US>> and above NC

 DS> As Michiel said, you skipped a step.   A majority of *ALL* sitting RCs
 DS> must first say that a policy change is needed.  If and when that
 DS> happens it is then sent to the *Cs and needs a majority of the votes
 DS> cast to pass.

 DS> Today, the quorum requirement would be less since we do not have as
 DS> many regions.

Whenever I bring the topic "Policy update" to discussion, there exist one
consent:  Policy requires an update

The still open question: in which direction shall goes such a project?

To discover answers from these open questions, a survey will probably help to
give us such answers.

Once we've received valuable answers, we can start preparing a project plan
without that, any policy update work is a waste of time




 US>> When last try to update Policy did happen? Was it in the 90's ?

 DS> The last policy revision attempt that I am aware of started in January
 DS> 2002, and then over most of the rest of the year the language was
 DS> negotiated via using an echo with at least 20 participants.  The final
 DS> draft was sent to the IC (Ward) for him to send to the RCs for
 DS> consideration and vote (note the actual reversal of roles there).
 DS> Ward sat on it without action for about a year, but finally did send
 DS> it out. The final vote of the RCs was published in March 2004.  That
 DS> vote did not even have a quorum, although a majority of those voting
 DS> said yes. Thus, it failed at that step.

what can be done before the project starts to increase the probability that a
quorum can be reached? What are possible key elements to bring the project to
success? Key persons? Content specials? Does have communications any impact to
the results a) before the project starts, b) within the project phase and c)
within the referendum procedure?
What support action(s) can have a decisive influence on the final result?


 DS>                                Dale Shipp
 DS>                   fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
 DS>                               (1:261/1466)
 DS> ... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 00:09:11, 30 Aug
 DS> 2013
 DS> ___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

 DS> -$- Maximus/NT 3.01
 DS>  $ Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

regards, uli   ;-)

---
 * Origin: AMBROSIA - Frankfurt/Main - Germany (2:244/1120)