Text 10110, 75 rader
Skriven 2013-08-30 12:03:40 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
  Kommentar till text 10108 av Nicholas Boel (21255.fidonews)
Ärende: Policy change
=====================
Hello Nicholas,

On Friday August 30 2013 01:00, you wrote to Dale Shipp:

 NB> I agree this is the rules stated, but the oddball here is that these
 NB> are the rules stated in the document that needs to be changed!

 NB> So, do you go by those exact rules of said document when that's the
 NB> document that people want to change? Should we go by the rules made up
 NB> in the late 80s to revise the document that makes those rules? It's
 NB> definitely a wierd issue, IMO.

Weird, but that is how it is. Whoever take another go at attempting to change
policy, have no choice but to follow the rules as they are laid down in current
policy. Because if they don't, there will be a substantial faction of Fidonet
that will simply reject the new policy just for that reason, even if it gets a
majority of the *C's and is ratified and declared in place by an as yet non
existent IC.

We will then have the situation od a split-up Fidonet. One part following the
old policy and the other part following the new policy. We will be worse off
than we are now.

 NB> Otherwise, I'm not going to be the candidate to do this, but I mean,
 NB> the interest is definitely there

The interest was there 10 years ago at the last attempt...

 NB> and I do see points of all parties involved. Then again, that's the
 NB> "mission impossible" is getting all parties to involve themselves..
 NB> most of which probably don't care. :)

I see less common ground that 10 years ago...

 DS>> The final vote of the RCs was published in March 2004.  That vote
 DS>> did not even have a quorum, although a majority of those voting
 DS>> said yes. Thus, it failed at that step.

 NB> Hmm. It seems nowadays we get a much bigger turnout in voting
 NB> processes.

 NB>  Maybe it was just that point in time where RCs weren't
 NB> contributing. I mean, it was pretty enlightening the last couple
 NB> elections we had, where only one or two RCs didn't cast a vote.
 NB> *shrug*

At te last FTSC election 20 out of a total of 35 RC's casted a vote.

The reader may draw his own conclusions...

 NB> Then again, 90% or more don't care about P4 or EP1 or anything like
 NB> that.

We have learned to live with it as it is...

 NB> They just want their systems connected to Fidonet for constant
 NB> message activity on their BBS (while people that don't run a BBS are
 NB> usually more active in discussions, because they don't have that BBS
 NB> to worry about.. I suppose). So us 10% that actually talk about it,
 NB> maybe someday 1% will try something. It seems the lack of a quorum
 NB> last time around depressed the people that were involved at the time
 NB> (that are still around now). And most aren't willing to do it anymore.

It wasn't just that it failed the quorum. If it had been just that, we might
have given it another go later. The big put-off was that when we were almost
there, it was actively sabotaged by a small bunch of vandals.

if it is demonstrated that it just takes two man to derail a train that took
100 men to get on the rail, that is when one packs up and goes home...


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20110320
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)