Articles

• ZEC1 Candidate, Bob Kohl, Platform statement
• Proposal to merge Internet and Fidonet mailers
• Netscape is FREE NOW!
• Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator Election Voting Procedure

ZEC1 Election Platform Statement
Bob Kohl
1:102/861

For the first time in the history of Zone 1 you the sysop now have the ability to vote for a zone Admin position, the ZEC. This unprecedented election allows the sysop to finally have a say in the matters of echomail and the direction Fidonet takes in the years to come in regards to echomail issues.

I feel that the next ZEC can have a positive influence on the state of Fidonet since echomail is such an important part of Fidonet in Zone 1.

As a candidate for the ZEC position I'd like to take a moment to present my platform to you. No matter which candidate you prefer I sincerely hope that you will make the effort to get out and vote this election, it IS important for all of us as sysops in Zone 1.

* To work to ensure that FidoNet remains a sysop/hobbyist network. There will be no special or political interests served during my watch.

* To work to insure that there will be no "official" FidoNet echomail feed that controls or influences any other feed.

The sysops will remain free to get echomail wherever they wish to without restriction in Z1, and that there will not be an "ECHOTAX" or Zone CRP, or anything remotely resembling this on my watch. Sysops will also be encouraged to develop new software and Fidonet Technology.

* To work to insure that the *ECs remain the coordinators of echomail and the people responsible for echomail issues.

* To work for a "hub standard", in the areas of tampering with the mail flow, removal of echo areas from distribution, adding areas for distribution as well as that of moderator rights.

With the established standard, the moderators and echo areas will be treated equally and consistently.

It is my belief that the use of GMD and other such utilities used against specific individuals or for personal agendas should cease.

Work with the *ECs, hubs and sysops to forge out a program to deal with the hubs that will not respect these standards, which might range from public postings that denote this to possibly requesting that the ZC grant the ZEC the option of issuing the hub flags to those nodes that wish to work within these standards. Any hub that does not agree to work within these standards will not be issued a hub flag for their nodelist entry.

That a standard be established for any removals of echo areas beyond the scope of Fidonet policy and these standards shall be published in Fidonews regularly.

That any distribution systems, FAQs, policy and/or pledges shall not exist contrary to these standards. It is not the intention of the ZEC to micromanage distribution systems, but to make sure that all echomail services are consistent and treated fairly.

* To encourage and work to maintain an active and responsible group of RECs in Zone 1.

To ensure all regions equal representation to the RECC. My first action will be a request to replace R16EC.

The RECs will be tasked with maintaining the flow of information on important issues from the RECC to the sysops of their respective regions. They will do the same with the feedback from the sysops on these issues. The sysops will be represented.

I will make use of FidoNews to keep the sysops updated on all issues currently being worked on.

* The RECC echo WILL be moderated to maintain the echo as a environment conducive to getting work done in a positive and/or constructive manner and not as a platform for any one agenda or for abuse. Representatives from all major distribution systems will be invited to participate as needed if they do not currently have access.

I do not now, nor will I view the RECs as helpers or assistants, nor do I view the ZEC as "The Boss". I view that the ZEC is much like the chairman of the board when dealing with the RECC, facilitating cooperation rather dictating or manipulating it. No pontificating, no edicts from Mount Olympus, etc.

Although the RECC has taken it's share of abuse over the past couple of years, we worked well to get the Z1EC election going again and I'd like to make sure this continues.

I also feel that it would be appropriate for the RECs to also participate in the ZEC echo to their discuss the point of view as well as those of their regions on any given issue, as well as having access to the ZEC in the ZEC echo.

* I would appoint a Z1 Webmaster to maintain a Z1 echomail web site and coordinate the Z1 web site links. I realize that there are already people working on this, however I would like to see someone more aggressively coordinate this effort. The Z1 Webmaster would also be there to help those folks that do not have but would like to have web sites for their nets and regions.

The Z1 Web site would maintain information of echomail services, rates, the distribution services "pledges and FAQs", information on FidoNet itself and what echomail is about; basically, a full service FidoNet site with the emphasis on echomail.

* On the issue of EchoPol:

The effort to get an EchoPol established in Z1 will be done on several levels.

First, with the moderator's permission, I will use the FIDOECHOPOL echo for public discussions. These discussion will be segmented into time periods as announced in FidoNews and in the echo.

This will not be a free for all, but an organized effort.

The admin discussion will take place on two levels: the RECC echo with the aforementioned crossposting to the regional echo's and in the C2C echo that was put in distribution for the all R* level admin personnel to discuss issues across the board. Since both these echoes are restricted, updates will be sent to FidoNews and the FIDOECHOPOL echo as they develop.

Bringing the RCs into the discussion is imperative as I see it, to establish guidelines on what they feel they can enforce under an EchoPol as well as what should not be enforced. On this basis was can more clearly define those gray areas as they pertain to echomail and echopol. It is crucial that both sides are involved in this, since echomail concerns the *ECs and yet it's the *Cs that enforce Fidonet policy issues. This will also help prevent any possible conflicting portions of EchoPol and help to resolve across the board such issues as hubs removing or modifying echomail either manually through the abuse of GMD and other utilities, etc.

I will also get the *ECs, distribution systems and moderators that care to participate in a discussion echo to resolve the issues of UUEncoded files being posted in echo areas, a set of standardized parameters for adding echoes to the distribution systems, removing echoes and dropping echoes for low traffic.

Lastly, I'd like to get the moderators involved in one of the moderator echoes to deal with issues that concern all of us: those of moderator rights and of the hub standards on these issues. I will most likely use the MODR8TR echo, since it is not restricted and allows sysop input. This will of course depend on the permission of the moderator of MODR8TR. A discussion of a cut request standard will also be addressed.

EchoPol will be developed with sysop level input as the election was.

*My views on specific points:*

* Sysop level input is as crucial as it was to this election.

* Mail moving:

I do not believe that the hubs moving the mail should be tampering with it without justification. *If* there is a concern about legal issues, then it's time to work out a standard to deal with this concern.

I do not believe that a distribution system should jeopardize their safety and operation over a potential legal liability regarding traffic passing in any given echo. At the same time I believe that the distribution systems should inform the ZEC of the specific legal issues before dropping an echo from distribution, so that the issue can be taken up with all distribution systems and hopefully a resolution be arbitrated.

* Moderator rights:

I am an old-time moderator since just after the single echo was split into the many that have evolved to where we are now. I believe that a moderator should have the final say how the moderator runs their echo. Period.

*If* during discussions on EchoPol someone comes up with a better alternative to "vote with your feet", then I am willing to listen. However, it will be up to the *ECs, sysops, moderators and hubs to work through this for a mutual agreement.

I do believe that the moderators should have a standard for a feed cut request. This is a simple issue that will be suggested to the moderators.

* The EchoList:

This is an entity that should remain separate and uninvolved in any affiliations, politics, etc. If there is a backup set up passwords, it should remain with the *ECs.

My qualifications:

Sysop for well over 10 years.

Moderator since just after the split of the echoes.

An NEC for 2-3 years.

An REC for over 3 years.

An RC for over 2 years, reviving and rebuilding Region 10 in the process after years of neglect. Region 10 has always been properly represented, including helping to restore some of the "U" flags that the user wanted. There have been no EXCOMs on my watch and only one PC that was denied. I have NEVER filed a PC nor have I felt the need to.

I've put in an exceptional amount of time into FidoNet, both promoting it and helping whenever I could. I fully intend to continue to do so as your ZEC, making sure that *YOU* the sysop can now have a voice in the matters of echomail beyond take it or leave it.

On a non-Fidonet level, I have been in management for over the past 20 years in normal and also in environments that were very political.

In my other hobby, I've also been a national director for a major horse breed association, the equivalent to an RC in Fidonet.

A proposal to merge
Internet-based FTS mailers
into Fidonet
by William Herrera, Node 1:307/1
(mailto: wherrera@lookout.com, telnet:166.93.38.14)

As a longtime Fidonet Sysop and past NC, now NEC of 1:307, may I propose that:

1. A NEW zone be made up, say zone 10 or whatever.
2. This ZONE allows ANY geographic base. Its nets can be countries, whatever.
3. This ZONE uses, indeed REQUIRES TCP/IP addresses for telephone numbers. (or internet domain based addresses, I suppose)
4. This ZONE requires the ability to do FTS type mailing OVER TELNET on a standard port for telnet.

I could set this up here right now (telnet:lookout.com).

I think the original reason for zones was calling costs and restrictions for calls across zones. Mail could be sent via a ZoneGate. This makes sense for mail across the regular zones and a new Internet zone, too!

This might finally help the nodelist GROW a bit, too. It is easy to set up a ZMH TCP/IP mailer on telnet, if you have internet access.

So what do ye think?

Netscape is FREE NOW!

X-Sender: fzbrk1@rsshp3.rssc.slg.eds.com
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Light Version 3.0.2 (32)
Date: Fri, 23 Jan 1998 07:50:44 -0500
To: webheads@softdisk.com
From: karen tiede <karen.tiede@rssc.slg.eds.com>
Subject: Netscape News
Sender: owner-webheads@softdisk.com
Reply-To: webheads@softdisk.com

Rec'd from the PRGrrl for http://www.trianglewebgrrls.com this morning--

NETSCAPE ANNOUNCES PLANS TO MAKE NEXT-GENERATION COMMUNICATOR SOURCE CODE AVAILABLE FREE ON THE NET

BOLD MOVE TO HARNESS CREATIVE POWER OF THOUSANDS OF INTERNET DEVELOPERS; COMPANY MAKES NETSCAPE NAVIGATOR AND COMMUNICATOR 4.0 IMMEDIATELY FREE FOR ALL USERS, SEEDING MARKET FOR ENTERPRISE AND NETCENTER BUSINESSES

MOUNTAIN VIEW, Calif. (January 22, 1998) -- Netscape Communications Corporation (NASDAQ: NSCP) today announced bold plans to make the source code for the next generation of its highly popular Netscape Communicator client software available for free licensing on the Internet. The company plans to post the source code beginning with the first Netscape Communicator 5.0 developer release, expected by the end of the first quarter of 1998. This aggressive move will enable Netscape to harness the creative power of thousands of programmers on the Internet by incorporating their best enhancements into future versions of Netscape's software. This strategy is designed to accelerate development and free distribution by Netscape of future high-quality versions of Netscape Communicator to business customers and individuals, further seeding the market for Netscape's enterprise solutions and Netcenter business.

In addition, the company is making its currently available Netscape Navigator and Communicator Standard Edition 4.0 software products immediately free for all users. With this action, Netscape makes it easier than ever for individuals at home, at school or at work to choose the world's most popular Internet client software as their preferred interface to the Internet.

"The time is right for us to take the bold action of making our client free - and we are going even further by committing to post the source code for free for Communicator 5.0," said Jim Barksdale, Netscape's president and chief executive officer. "By giving away the source code for future versions, we can ignite the creative energies of the entire Net community and fuel unprecedented levels of innovation in the browser market. Our customers can benefit from world-class technology advancements; the development community gains access to a whole new market opportunity; and Netscape's core businesses benefit from the proliferation of the market-leading client software."

Netscape plans to make Netscape Communicator 5.0 source code available for modification and redistribution beginning later this quarter with the first developer release of the product. The company will handle free source distribution with a license which allows source code modification and redistribution and provides for free availability of source code versions, building on the heritage of the GNU Public License (GPL), familiar to developers on the Net. Netscape intends to create a special Web site service where all interested parties can download the source code, post their enhancements, take part in newsgroup discussions, and obtain and share Communicator-related information with others in the Internet community. Netscape will also continue to develop new technologies and offer periodic certified, high-quality, supported releases of its Netscape Communicator and Navigator products, incorporating some of the best features created by this dynamic community.

The ubiquity of Netscape's client software facilitates Netscape's strategy of linking millions of individuals to businesses. Today's announcements will help to further proliferate Netscape's award- winning client software which today has an installed base of more than 68 million, providing a ready market for businesses using Netscape's Networked Enterprise software solutions and Netscape Netcenter services. Netscape's research indicates that in the education market where Netscape's products are free, the Netscape client software commands approximately 90 percent share, indicating that users tend to choose Netscape when the choice is freely available. Making its browser software free also will enable Netscape to continue to drive Internet standards, maximize the number of users on the Internet, and expand the third-party community of companies and products that take advantage of the Netscape software platform.

Netscape has successfully shifted its business over the past year toward enterprise software sales and to revenues from its Web site business, and away from standalone client revenues. In the third quarter of 1997, standalone client revenues represented approximately 18 percent of Netscape's revenue, with the rest coming from enterprise software, services and the Web site. Preliminary results for the fourth quarter of 1997, which Netscape announced January 5, show standalone client revenues decreased to approximately 13 percent in the fourth quarter. In the fourth quarter of 1996 by comparison, standalone client revenue represented approximately 45 percent of Netscape's revenue.

In conjunction with its free client, Netscape separately announced today that it is launching a host of enhanced products and services that leverage its free client software to make it easy for enterprise and individual customers to adopt Netscape solutions. The new products and services reinforce Netscape's strategy of leveraging market penetration of its popular client software and its busy Internet site to seed further sales of Netscape software solutions in the home and business markets. The new products and services include enhanced subscription and support packages, an investment protection program for Netscape Communicator users, new reduced pricing on Netscape's retail and enterprise client products, new Premium Services on its Netscape Netcenter online service and Netscape SuiteSpot server software upgrades featuring Netscape client software.

In addition, the company separately announced the launch of an aggressive new software distribution program called "Unlimited Distribution" to broadly distribute its market-leading Internet client software for free. Unlimited Distribution enables Original Equipment Manufacturers (OEMs), Internet Service Providers (ISPs), telecommunications companies, Web content providers, publishers and software developers to download and redistribute Netscape Communicator and Netscape Navigator easily with "no strings attached." In addition, beginning immediately, individual users can download Netscape Communicator or Navigator for free, register for Netscape Netcenter and, beginning tomorrow, enter the Choose Netscape Sweepstakes to win exciting travel-related prizes including a grand prize of two all- inclusive, seven-night tropical resort vacations.

Individuals can download a free copy of Netscape Communicator client software or the Netscape Navigator browser from the Netscape home page at http://home.netscape.com, or by clicking on any of the thousands of "Netscape Now" buttons on the Internet. Netscape Communicator Professional Edition, which adds features for enterprise customers, will be available for US$29.

Netscape Communications Corporation is a premier provider of open software for linking people and information over enterprise networks and the Internet. The company offers a full line of Netscape Navigator clients, servers, development tools and commercial applications to create a complete platform for next-generation, live online applications. Traded on NASDAQ under the symbol "NSCP," Netscape Communications Corporation is based in Mountain View, California.

Additional information on Netscape Communications Corporation is available on the Internet at http://home.netscape.com, by sending email to info@netscape.com or by calling 650/937-2555 (corporate customers) or 650/937-3777 (individuals).

Netscape is a trademark of Netscape Communications Corporation, which is registered in the United States and other jurisdictions. Netscape Communications, the Netscape Communications logo, Netscape Navigator, Netscape SuiteSpot, Netscape Composer, Netscape Messenger and Netscape Communicator are trademarks of Netscape Communications Corporation.

Corporate Sales: 650/937-2555 - Corporate Renewal Sales: 650/937-2929
-Personal Sales: 650/937-3777 - Government Sales: 650/937-3678 -
Education Sales: 650/937-2810

If you have any questions, please visit Customer Service, or contact your nearest sales office.

Copyright 1998 Netscape Communications Corporation.

When your only tool is Notepad.exe, the world looks like a *.txt file.

Karen Tiede
919-784-8478
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Cafe/1812/

-30-

Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator Election Voting Procedure
by Martin Belcke 1:232/10, 1:232/16, mbelcke@ws02.irvbbs.com

To The Members of Fidonet, Zone 1.

In compliance with a directive from the Zone 1 Coordinator, an election for the position of Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator has been underway. The first phase, nominations, has concluded. The second phase, campaigning has concluded (as of 1-22-98). The third phase, voting, will commence 1-26-98 and end 2-15-98.

The following list of candidates (listed by date of acceptance) are the only valid candidates for this election.

Wayne DeLisle Sr      1:379/33    ACCEPTED  12/11/97
David Calafrancesco   1:2624/0    ACCEPTED  12/13/97
Mike Luther           1:117/3001  ACCEPTED  12/14/97
Jeff Smith            1:282/1     ACCEPTED  12/20/97
Jim Balcom            1:109/334   ACCEPTED  12/22/97
John Glinski          1:320/237   ACCEPTED  12/24/97
Bob Kohl              1:102/861   ACCEPTED  12/28/97

Because there are more than two candidates, a process called preferential balloting is being used to prevent the need for any run- off elections. Preferential balloting is explained below:

PREFERENTIAL BALLOTING PROCEDURE

Preferential balloting allows for casting of multiple votes, listed in order of preference of candidates. Through this method, run-off elections are usually not necessary. At all times, the highest ranked name is used for each ballot, unless that name has been eliminated in any round of tallying. During each round of tallying, the candidate that receives the least number of votes is eliminated. If that is the only candidate listed on a ballot, then that ballot is also eliminated and the number of votes needed to win is also reduced accordingly.

The order goes like this.

Step 1

Count the total number of ballots and determine what the number of ballots needed to win would be.

Step 2

Sort the ballots according to the top candidate listed on each ballot skipping any names that were eliminated.

Step 3

Tally the votes for each candidate according to the sorted order of ballots.

Step 4

Did any candidate receive the necessary number of votes to win? If NO, goto Step 4a. If YES, goto Step 5. If no further rounds will determine a winner goto Step 6.

Step 4a

Eliminate the name of the candidate that received the least number of votes scratching off that name from each ballot. If that is the only name on a ballot, eliminate that ballot.

Step 5

Determine the winner.

Step 6

Send results to the Z1C for further action.

The process is explained below by example.

CANDIDATE #1
CANDIDATE #2       Based on number of ballots, it takes 3 votes
CANDIDATE #3       to win.
CANDIDATE #4

 BALLOT #1     BALLOT #2     BALLOT #3     BALLOT #4     BALLOT #5

Candidate 1   Candidate 1   Candidate 2   Candidate 4   Candidate 4
Candidate 2   Candidate 3   Candidate 1   Candidate 1   Candidate 3
Candidate 3   Candidate 4   Candidate 3   Candidate 2   Candidate 2
Candidate 4   Candidate 2   Candidate 4   Candidate 3   Candidate 1

On the first tally, the following results occur:

   CANDIDATE # 1   2 votes
   CANDIDATE # 2   1 vote
   CANDIDATE # 3   0 votes
   CANDIDATE # 4   2 votes

No winner declared...

Candidate # 3 is eliminated.

Votes now look like this:

 BALLOT #1     BALLOT #2     BALLOT #3     BALLOT #4     BALLOT #5

Candidate 1   Candidate 1   Candidate 2   Candidate 4   Candidate 4
Candidate 2                 Candidate 1   Candidate 1
              Candidate 4                 Candidate 2   Candidate 2
Candidate 4   Candidate 2   Candidate 4                 Candidate 1

Re-tallying votes, first choice must be used when possible, the results are:

   CANDIDATE # 1   2 votes
   CANDIDATE # 2   1 vote
   CANDIDATE # 4   2 votes

No winner declared...

Because candidate # 2 receives the least number of votes, candidate #2 is eliminated.

Votes now look like this:

 BALLOT #1     BALLOT #2     BALLOT #3     BALLOT #4     BALLOT #5

Candidate 1   Candidate 1                 Candidate 4   Candidate 4
                            Candidate 1   Candidate 1
              Candidate 4
Candidate 4                 Candidate 4                 Candidate 1

Re-tallying votes, first choice must be used when possible, the results are:

  CANDIDATE # 1  3 votes    (Ballot #3's first choice was eliminated)
  CANDIDATE # 4  2 votes

Candidate # 1 is declared winner as there are the required number of votes cast to receive a majority vote of all ballots.

If, for some reason, a voter has put Candidate #2 or Candidate #3 for all votes, that ballot would have been eliminated at the same time the candidate was eliminated as the votes would then be considered as cast for an invalid candidate. At the same time, the number of votes needed to win would have been adjusted. This could have caused a problem in our example, as it may have resulted in a tie-vote. At that time, the rules of the election would have been used concerning action to take in event of a tie vote.

***** END PREFERENTIAL BALLOTING *****

The voting requirements, taken from the election rules are:

3) VOTING PERIOD

Following the campaign period, a period shall be allowed for each eligible voter to cast his/her vote. Votes must be sent via direct netmail to the election coordinator, or by any other method at the discretion of the election coordinator. Votes must be sent during the voting period and must include a keyword/password, name and node of the person voting (as it appears in the Fidonet nodelist) and the name of one of the candidates on the election slate. If preferential balloting is being used, then more than one candidate may be listed in order of preference. Any vote received that does not contain the above information will be declared invalid and the ballot will not be counted. Any vote cast that uses a method not approved will be declared invalid and the ballot will not be counted.

Any vote received prior to or after the voting period shall be disallowed. The election coordinator shall acknowledge each vote by netmail (direct or routed), or by any other method at the discretion of the election coordinator, with a simple statement that the vote has been received and recorded.

In the event there are more than two candidates, the voting method shall be that of preferential balloting.

Any member of Fidonet, Zone 1 is eligible to vote, under the following criteria. Nodes beginning with the keyword of ZONE, REGION, HOST, HUB, or DOWN or nodes that are redundant entries are not eligible. One vote for sysops with more than one node. One vote for nodes with more than one person listed at that node. Nodes listed as PVT or HOLD are eligible.

The Fidonet nodelist published prior to the beginning of the voting period shall be the primary nodelist to determine eligible voters. Allowance for errors in the nodelist may be made by the election coordinator, but at all times a valid Fidonet nodelist must be used.

*** END VOTING RULE ***

Sample ballots are listed below:

VOTING PERIOD IS January 22, 1998 to February 15, 1998.

DO NOT use this as your ballot.

In this election, there are 7 candidates running for the position of Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator (Z1EC). As such, a procedure called preferential balloting is being used to prevent the need for run-off elections should no candidate receive a majority vote. Preferential balloting simply means you rank the candidates in order of your preference. If there is a candidate you do not want to vote for, simply do not list that candidate on your ballot. However, understand that if all of those candidates that you did list are eliminated in any round of tallying, so would your ballot be eliminated. (see examples).

The basic information that is REQUIRED in order for your ballot to be counted is as follows:

***** REQUIRED INFORMATION *****

1) Your name as it appears in the Fidonet nodelist and your node number as it appears in the Fidonet nodelist.

NOTE: This information will be posted for verification purposes after the close of the voting period in a list of those who voted listed numerically by node number. This list will NOT contain the vote or keyword used.

2) A password/keyword that is to be used to verify your vote.

NOTE: The password/keyword will be posted along with your vote for verification after the close of the voting period in a list containing all of the passwords/keywords and vote associated with that password/keyword listed alphabetically by password/keyword. This list will not contain voter name or nodenumber.

Try to keep the password under 15 characters. 8 characters is preferred. Passwords used that are considered "vulgar" are not acceptable passwords. What is considered "vulgar" is at my discretion. In the event that you choose to send an unacceptable password, the password will be changed and I will send you the new password either my routed netmail or e-mail.

3) Your Vote - A list of one or more valid candidates names. NOTE: The first valid candidate name listed on the ballot is first choice, followed by the next valid candidate for second choice and so forth. Any extraneous ordering information will be ignored. EXAMPLE: Any numbers listed or other information other than the name of a candidate. Please list candidates names on separate lines.

***** END OF REQUIRED INFORMATION *****

You may send your vote via any of the following methods:

NOTE: Please use VOTE for the subject line. It will make it easier on me. The subject line is NOT a requirement for a valid ballot, simply a courtesy to the vote counter.

DIRECT NETMAIL to Martin Belcke 1:232/10 or 1:232/16

DIRECT NETMAIL to Election Coordinator 1:232/10 or 1:232/16

ROUTED NETMAIL to Martin Belcke 1:232/10 or 1:232/16

ROUTED NETMAIL to Election Coordinator 1:232/10 or 1:232/16

E-MAIL to mbelcke@ws02.irvbbs.com

NOTE: The other e-mail addresses listed in Fidonews 1449 are not working correctly, so if you send your vote by e-mail, you will need to send it to the above address.

SAMPLE BALLOTS:

The following are several types of ballots. The examples are NOT the only types of valid ballots. Any ballot that contains the REQUIRED information, as per the election rules, is considered a valid ballot. If the election coordinator is unable to understand your ballot, you will receive a netmail (or e-mail) message asking for clarification.

For these examples, we are going to use the following names as candidates: George Washington, Henry Adams, James Kirk, Joan of Arc, Mary Shepherd, Joe Public, Pat Paulsen

SAMPLE BALLOT #1 - This voter is listing only 1 candidate. The name and node number information is contained in the header of the netmail message.

From : Joe Voter (1:222/333)
To : Martin Belcke (1:232/10)
Subject : VOTE

PASSWORD - XXXPPPTTTBBB

George Washington

Joe Voter

END SAMPLE #1

SAMPLE BALLOT #2 - This voter is listing 3 candidates, listed in order of preference. The order the names are entered will be used as the order of preference. Any numbers that appear next to the names will be ignored. The name and node number information is contained in the header of the netmail message.

From : Joe Voter (1:222/333)
To : Election Coordinator (1:232/10)
Subject : VOTE

PASSWORD - BYTRENMPOIM

George Washington
Henry Adams
James Kirk

Joe Voter

END SAMPLE #2

SAMPLE BALLOT #3 - This voter is listing 7 candidates, listed in order of preference. The order the names are entered will be used as the order of preference. Any numbers that appear next to the names will be ignored. The name and node number information is contained in the header of the netmail message.

From : Joe Voter (1:222/333)
To : Election Coordinator (1:232/10)
Subject : VOTE

PASSWORD - BYTRENMPOIM

George Washington 6
Henry Adams 5
Jimmy Durante 4
Joe Public 3
Pat Paulsen 2
James Kirk 1
Mary Shepherd 7

Joe Voter

END SAMPLE #3

SAMPLE BALLOT #4 - - This voter send their vote through the internet.

From : joe@voter.com
To : mbelcke@ws02.irvbbs.com
Subject : VOTE

NAME : Joe Voter
NODE NUMBER : 1:222/333
PASSWORD : XXXCCCMMMBB

The rest of this ballot could look like any of the other ballots shown above.

END SAMPLE #4

SAMPLE BALLOT # 5 - This voter listed the candidates names on the same line. The order listed is the order of preference. Any numbers listed will be ignored.

From : Joe Voter (1:222/333)
To : Election Coordinator (1:232/10)
Subject : VOTE

PASSWORD: XCVBYN

George Washington, Henry Adams, Joan of Arc, Pat Paulsen, James Kirk

Joe Voter

END SAMPLE # 5

EXPLANATIONS:

In SAMPLE BALLOT #3, the numbers that appear next to the names are ignored and the names as listed are used as the order of preference.

In SAMPLE BALLOT #5, the names are used in order listed. It will be a LOT easier on the tallying if each candidate is listed on a separate line.

In preferential balloting, the first valid name that is listed is the "preferred" name in counting the ballot. After the votes are tallied, if no candidate receives the necessary number of votes to win, the candidate that receives the LEAST number of votes is eliminated and the votes are then recounted using the first valid name listed. If a candidate has been eliminated, then that name is no longer a valid name. In SAMPLE #1, if George Washington had been eliminated, then so would that ballot be eliminated, thus reducing the number of ballots by 1. The number of votes needed to win would also be adjusted.

In SAMPLE #3, there is an invalid name listed (Jimmy Durante). This name would be considered to be an invalid vote and would not be used. If George Washington and Henry Adams were eliminated in any round of tallying, then the next valid candidate (Joe Public) would be used as the preferred name for SAMPLE #3. In SAMPLE #2, if George Washington, Henry Adams AND James Kirk are all eliminated in any round of tallying, then so would the ballot be eliminated, thus reducing the number of ballots by 1. The number of votes needed to win would also be adjusted.

In SAMPLE #4, the voter chose to send the ballot via the internet in an e-mail message addressed to mbelcke@ws02.irvbbs.com. Since the header information does not contain the NAME and NODE NUMBER of the voter as it appears in the Fidonet nodelist, that information --must-- be listed in the BODY of the e-mail message.

**** END SAMPLE BALLOTING EXAMPLES ****

This announcement is respectfully submitted to you, the members of Fidonet, Zone 1, and serves as the official announcement of the voting phase of this election process. Thank you for your time and look forward to seeing you participate in the election.

--Martin Belcke--
Election Coordinator, Z1EC election
Fidonet Node 1:232/10
Fidonet Node 1:232/16
primary e-mail mbelcke@ws02.irvbbs.com