Letters to the Editor

RESPONSE TO EDITORIAL
IN FIDONEWS DATED 22 JUNE 1998
By Ben Hamilton, FidoNet 1:124/7008

This letter is in response to the editorial that was included in the FidoNews issue on June 22, 1998.

Before I begin, I anticipate again being accused of selective quoting. To remind the readers, my reasoning for such quoting is simple. Since I have personal knowledge of only some of the comments made by the editor, it is only proper that I respond to only those comments. The items that I select will be the ones to which I have personal knowledge. The editor is free to state whatever views he likes on the other issues, regardless of accuracy, as far as I am concerned, as I have no way to counter information that I myself have not witnessed and verified.

In response to the editor's opinion that the RECs have posted the results of the no-confidence vote, then refused to reveal the particulars, I can only say this: The ZEC duties, as written by Bob Kohl, approved by the RECs, and then recognized by the ZC, state the "charges" quite clearly.

>> If the RECC concludes that the ZEC is not active, <<
>> ineffective in his/her job or is just not taking <<
>> care his/her responsibilities; they may take a <<
>> vote of no-confidence. <<

The RECC charges that the ZEC is inactive, ineffective in his job, and is not taking care of his responsibilities.

These are the charges. They are very simple. The basis for them is also simple. One just has to turn it around the other way. How has he been active? How has he been effective? How has he been taking care of his responsibilities?

As I must continually remind you because the editor keeps asking, Kohl's first act after winning the ZEC election was to ask the RECC how he should go about removing an NEC from office. He did remove the NEC. He soon removed an NC. His REC quit, saying that he could no longer stand working with Kohl. He disclosed some in-transit netmail.

Are these the actions of a active, effective, responsible ZEC? Can you honestly say "yes" in good conscience?

The editor states again and again that Kohl was the first person to be elected to a zone position by a sysop-level vote. I urge all sysops who voted for him to come forward! Let your NECs and RECs know that you feel Kohl has been active, effective, and responsible and how. Please be specific. And if a sysop-level vote is so great, why was the recent R10C election only an NC-level vote?

The editor goes on to state that answers in "his own situation" are "forthcoming." Answers? That would be refreshing.

Included in this issue of FidoNews should be an announcement that the RECC has approved of Thom LaCosta as the new "EchoList." So much for politics.

-Ben Hamilton
FidoNet 1:124/7008
Internet: ben.hamilton@compconn.net