Re: Z1C Election
By: Dallas Hinton to Nick Andre on Sun May 27 2018 01:23 am
CS>>> Ok, lets turn it around. Candidates, I gave a sample. What might
CS>>> you
RH> thin
CS>>> deserves at least a look at? Not saying you'd change it, but look
CS>>> at it?
NA>> A few sections I would suggest to be revised to reflect the current
NA>> state of the network or to clarify things further. Nothing
NA>> earth-shattering.
DH> I agree, Nick -- and perhaps we could look at providing an alternative to
DH> an IC, such as adding to the word "IC", the phrase "or a majority of the
DH> ZCC". This would seem logical since a majority of the ZCC can overule any
DH> IC decision anyway. By passing this modification we could then move forward
DH> without all the twaddle about "we can't do that because we don't have an IC
DH> to say so". :-)
I like that too! Operationally we've been working that way for a very long
time. It would be nice if P4 reflected current reality without removing the
ability to have an IC should a need or desire arise in the future.
xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32
* Origin: Shenk's Express, shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)
|
