Letters to the Editor

"MISDIRECTION -- TOO GOOD TO STOP NOW"
by Ben Hamilton, FidoNet 1:124/7008

bk> First point, the ZEC duties were written with input not only
bk> from the RECs, but from the sysops of Z1 themselves. There was
bk> no single author to the list.

Bob Kohl was the lone original author of the list. It was he who wrote the first draft and then submitted it to all for their comments.

I have since changed the way I refer to the ZEC duties. I now say: "The ZEC duties, as originally written by Bob Kohl, amended and approved by the RECC, and sanctioned by the ZC." Hopefully that covers all of the bases. :-)

bk> More to the point is some of the RECs convenient use of the
bk> list selectively without "remembering" that the list also
bk> notes the use of an interim ZEC.

So?

bk> When I was elected, I started sending out netmail looking for
bk> a replacement for the Elist keeper. In the end, there were two
bk> individuals that were working on a replacement for the Elist:
bk> Thom (the appointed replacement Elist keeper), and Marshall
bk> Presnell. Marshall is a professional software engineer and has
bk> been for years. Marshall was also a Fidonet sysop for many many
bk> years. He offered to help and, as Thom was, in the process of
bk> building an Elist replacement. As things progressed, I
bk> continued to give feedback on the issue to the ZC in an
bk> impartial manner as I felt I was expected to.

Without consulting or informing the RECs in any way.

Yes, Bob Kohl chose to keep the information about Marshall's project a secret from the RECC. The RECC could have made a more informed decision on the best replacement for the echolist if it had been properly informed of any and all projects that any *ECs knew of.

bk> In the end, Thom was selected by Bob, and my congratulations
bk> or condolences as the case maybe.

Amen!

BH> As I must continually remind you because the editor keeps
BH> asking, Kohl's first act after winning the ZEC election was to
BH> ask the RECC how he should go about removing an NEC from office.
BH> He did remove the NEC.

bk> Wrong, as noted both in the REC echo and in other echos the
bk> question was one that was brought to me by the *C side and
bk> possibly looking for an alternative to the normal means of
bk> an RC dealing with the issue.

What's wrong? The NEC was removed from office. That is a fact.

If Bob Kohl was not also an RC, there would be no issue, since ZECs cannot remove NEC flags from the nodelist.

bk> There is nothing wrong with looking for an alternative means
bk> to deal with an issue except of course when it's turned around
bk> to make it look like there's political motivation involved.

Bob Kohl has said many times that he does not discuss his RC duties in the REC echo, yet above he says that he brought up the issue himself. Both cannot be correct.

If the motivation was not political, I invite Bob Kohl to explain what the reasons were for the removal of the NEC flag.

BH> He soon removed an NC.

bk> I'd like everyone to remember Ben's statement that what goes
bk> on in Reg 10 is none of his business. Sounded good at the
bk> time, didn't it?

It still sounds good now! I'd like to remind Bob Kohl of the entire statement about Region 10, as it was posted a few weeks ago in Fido- News:

BH> Region 10 business, frankly, is none of our business. However,
BH> things that happen in Region 10 do make it easy to see what can
BH> happen when the "multiple hats" suggestion in Policy 4 is
BH> ignored.

Translation:

I am by no means interested in the internal workings of Region 10 so that I can change them. I am only interested in them because it proves that if Bob Kohl acts this destructive in his own region, it is bound to overflow into his Zone duties. That is when it is important to me.

BH> His REC quit, saying that he could no longer stand working with
BH> Kohl.

bk> Ben's memory of the time line is a bit shakey. The REC quit
bk> before any action about this issue took place.

Time is not the issue. The REC did quit because he could not stand working under Bob Kohl's thumb. That is a fact.

BH> He disclosed some in-transit netmail.

bk> Ben also likes to paint with a very broad brush. There were
bk> two complaints brought up. One was dismissed, the other was
bk> explained and apologized for. Someone sent me netmail and I
bk> cc'ed Bob Satti when I responded.

The fact is that the netmail was not "to" Bob Kohl. And:

bk> While technically it is disclosing in-transit mail, ...

Bob Kohl admits to disclosing in-transit netmail. The sender and recipient probably do not care if it was "technical" or not, and I do not think that the writers of FidoNet's policy did either, else they might have written the section on in-transit mail differently, perhaps choosing to cover this exact situation.

I suppose it just goes to show that Bob Kohl cannot be trusted with the confidentiality of any netmail passing through his system, so everyone would be wise to use other more private means of transport, as suggested in policy.

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

bk> Is this the same Ben Hamilton that suggested to a sysop that
bk> he should change his node number to poll someone? Using an
bk> unissued nodenumber? Ben should spend a moment reading P4.

I have read P4 many times. I suggested to a sysop that he change his node number to something that a new sysop might use, like /9999, long enough to determine whether or not Bob Kohl had him passworded out of his system or not. There is no harm in that, as no mail transfer would be taking place, and the rest of the sysop information (sysop name, location, etc.) would still be passed.

It should also be noted that, if Bob Kohl did indeed password this sysop out of his system without his knowledge, this entire procedure would not be necessary. Since Bob Kohl will not answer (or has not yet answered) whether or not he did password out this sysop, we may never know the truth.

If the truth is that the problem was elsewhere, I would appreciate an explanation so that I can offer an apology.

bk> I find it interesting that [Ben Hamilton is] now suggesting
bk> behavior that is generally frowned upon or considered illegal
bk> per P4.

I encourage Bob Kohl to quote the section of policy that states that my suggestion is unacceptable.

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