Guest Editorial

Steve and Dave
guest editors this week.

By: Steven Horn
To: Dave Hamilton

Dave Hamilton (1:229/622) wrote to Steven Horn at 17:19 on 20 Nov 2000

DH>There is no mechanism for reversing his decision. Have you read P4? All they could do was complain about it.

There's nothing in P4 about an RC being elected either. Given that, you unelect the offender and elect a new one. You may not have enough time but you can at least make an attempt.

DH> But cheer up, now we have an "election guideline" that paraphrases P4 using words that have been redefined. NOW, they can't even complain!

That's still something available to the sysops.

DH>In fact, the process is better than having the RC appointed whether the RC is accountable or not.

SH> I happen to believe in an RC's accountability more strongly than I worry about how he got there.

DH> Excellent. We're in complete agreement. Except for the mechanism. Where is YOUR guarantee of accountability defined? Ours is in our policy of holding annual RC elections by sysop.

What would you do if your incumbent RC said "Screw you. Your right to vote an election has been eliminated."

DH> Utterly. He's just asked us if we want him to vote at all for ZC. He stated that he is opposed to this "sham" but will be happy to vote if we so instruct him.

And will someone poll all of your nodes?

DH> Why don't you just ask them? Ruth posts right here in this echo.

She reads these posts.

DH> Uh, yeah. What did YOU mean by "democratically?"

Open elections without the fix being in. The last go around, I was still a NC and polled my nodes. They did not respond so they lost their votes which was their choice.

Take care,

Steven Horn (shorn@yknet.yk.ca) Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT and CAN_SYSLAW