William,
I hadnt taken you for an idealist!
>
> 1) Is this an area in which we have authority over/charter to address?
>
No, but the proper authorities are neglecting their duty.
> 2) Are there harms that exist that warrant the creation of a policy?
>
No, but there could be and we should ('are expected to') be
proactive.
> 3) Is there a lack of existing policy/law/rules that address these
> harms sufficiently?
>
No, but the rules are not *perceived as addresing them
sufficiently.
> 4) Does this proposed policy sufficient address solving the problems
> addressed in Question #2?
>
No, but it's a start.
> 5) And finally, spell out the advantages and disadvantages of the
> proposed policy, and and answer the question "Do the advantages of
> this proposal outweigh the disadvantages of this proposal?"
>
No, but either nobody will notice until later, or we can make it look as if they do.
> If the answer to question 1 is no, then you toss the proposal. If the
> answer to question 2 is no, then you toss the proposal. If the answer
> to question 3 is no, then you toss the proposal. If the answer to
> question 4 is no, then you toss the proposal. If the answer to
> question 5 is no, then you toss the proposal.
>
> In an open and democratic system, these questions will be addressed to
> the satisfaction of the community before any policy/proposal is
> adopted.
Satisfaction? What's that in a democracy?
kerry
