Letters to the Editor

By: Gary Gilmore
To: Darrell Salter

DS> Where did I say "majority of Zone 1" as you've quoted above?

You're implying "a vast majority", but that's a shadowy quote, intended to make it sound like a real majority of Z1, which it isn't at all. You might want to make it clear that it's the "vast majority of all 20 (or whatever) sysops that bothered to reply". Now, compare that with the number of about 1800 or so total Z1 sysops, and it's really a tiny sampling, and not enough to be truly representative of any "sysop feelings" in Fidonet.

When you can come back with a sampling of, oh, let's say 1/2 of the sysops (900ish), then you'll be a heck of a lot closer to a true "what the sysops think". Until then, you're merely projecting your feelings onto the face of Z1 Fidonet at large.

DS> Is this actually a quote or did you fabricate it?

Nope, it was my own quote, based on what I see as your implication of the result of this "poll".

DS> What did the RCC do? Stomped it out. A bully can only step on...

GG> Umm, this "poll" didn't complete until the current election

DS> That's not true

Yes it is. If anything, they both happened right about the same time. I do notice that you don't mention that our current Z1C told the "Election Coordinator" to "go ahead" with this election, and I wonder why that is. <shrug>

DS> Don't tell me you're losing mail too. Sheesh.

Nope, my feed is just fine, thanks.

--gary

By: David Calafrancesco
To: Andrea Santos

Andrea Santos wrote in a message to Janis Kracht: AS> On Nov 21, 2000 10:33am, JANIS KRACHT wrote to ANDREA SANTOS: My position on the duties of an election coordinator is complete impartiality which means no suggestion of potential candidates, regardless of qualifications.

JK> WHY?

AS> The EO has one duty; coordinate a fair and accurate election. That duty does not include recommendations or suggestions on the qualifications of any potential nominee. Martin understood this and, though his stances weren't terribly hard to figure out, his handling of such matters was above reproach.

AS> FWIW, I hope you know my initial comment had nothing to do with you. Would have said something regardless of who was suggested.

Really? Perhaps you should sit and have a chat with your Secretary of State. I find it absurd that she hasn't recursed herself after having courted an ambassadorship or cabinet post from one of the candidates and contributing a not insubstantial amount of her own personal fortune to that same candidates campaign. Sheesh... talk about a real conflict of interest. Luckily there are courts in FL that don't seem to have the same conflicts.

The real world is this is a hobby. People who volunteer to help the rest of us shouldn't be penalized for having the stupid gene that allows them to volunteer. I can't think of anyone that would be persuaded simply because a zone ballot clerk noted the name of someone who in the ballot clerk's personal opinion would likely be a good candidate. I also note that not a single person jumped on the not so subtle suggestion and that Janis remains in the same status that she had before (actually in a worse position because now any nominations for her will be scrutinized).

Dave Calafrancesco, Team OS/2
dave@drakkar.org

By: Carol Shenkenberger
To: Danny Walters

*** Quoting Danny Walters from a message to Darrell Salter ***

DW> his own impeachment papers by abusing the vote he carries.

CS> Or she (grin). In my region, it's even in the regional policy and has been since 94. (R13 was one of the earliest to go to voting in the RC/REC, but not sure if they were the first). 10% of the sysops or 20% of the NC's. I represent my region by choice but I didn't and they wanted another, they can vote me out PDQ!

Our EM (our name for regional voting officer, an elected position) is looking over a draft (second one) based on our voted 'policy' and adapted for this, and if it's workable, he'll adapt as needed and let everyone know.

Simple version: Sysop-wide in region (just like all our elections have been), 'weighted voting' (takes time to explain but it's a little like the Z1EC election idea, cast in order of your preference), EM casts any tie votes for RC if needed (an adaption as I may have results from other regions already so I asked the region if they minded that being delegated and no one piped up with an objection). Yes, gave my RC vote to my region, as is proper.

xxcarol

By: Lesley-Dee Dylan
To: David Calafrancesco

DC> The real world is this is a hobby. People who volunteer to help the rest of us shouldn't be penalized for having the stupid gene that allows them to volunteer. I can't think of anyone that would be persuaded simply because a zone ballot clerk noted the name of someone who in the ballot clerk's personal opinion would likely be a good candidate. I also note that not a single person jumped on the not so subtle suggestion and that Janis remains in the same status that she had before (actually in a worse position because now any nominations for her will be scrutinized).

LD> It wasn't the suggestion that an individual would be a good candidate that made my eyebrows perk up, it was the implication that she would not be the election officer's choice for the position. As far as I was concerned, that was the inappropriate part of the post by Carol.

An elections officer (returning officer) has a responsibility to make sure everyone feels that they are eligible to run, and to ensure that there is a fairly good slate of candidates to chose from, even if it means encouraging people to run. But it shouldn't just be one person, she should be suggesting a dozen or so good candidates. Impartiality would suggest that she should suggest at least three, with widely differing viewpoints.

By: Darrell Salter
To: Ross Cassell

Ross Cassell wrote in a message to Darrell Salter:

ml>> 1. P4 is the policy of the organization.

DS>Interesting. How and when did that happen? What was the vote count? Please provide references.

RC> Since you werent alive when some of Canada's Federal laws or Ontario provincial laws were in place, does that mean they are not in effect or do not apply to you?

He made the claim that P4 is the policy of the organization. I've asked him to prove it. Has nothing to do with when anyone was alive.

If you mean to suggest that Fidonet gave it's elected officials a mandate to erect the laws of Fidonet, just as the citizens of our countries did with their elected officials, again I would ask for proof of this. It has never happened in Fidonet to the best of my knowledge. The best I have seen in this regard is local policies for nets and regions and those policies apply only to those nets and regions.

As you know, we've been down this road many times before, and the proof of P4's validity as the law of the land simply isn't there. What did happen was that a group of RCs tried to force their self-created policy document onto the sysops of Fidonet without a mandate to do so and that policy was never formally accepted by the Sysops even to this day. There has always been substantial resistance to this action by the RCs from many of Fidonet's sysops. All it has done is create hard feelings and division, some that accept P4 and some that don't. We've heard arguments on both sides of the debate and many of those arguments are good ones. But until Fidonet Sysops agree one way or the other, P4 just cannot be deemed the law of the land. It is, at best, an old, stale, guidelines document. Not even of much value there. The odds of ever getting proper ratification of P4 is slim to none, and for good reason.

There is another problem. Those of us that have net and/or regional policies may have alienated some sysops that may not have agreed with the those policies, even though they received majority approval of the sysops of those nets or regions. Such is the nature of democracy. Those sysops had options, one of which was to move to another net or region where they could be free of policies they did not agree with. We have both seen this happen. Were we to try to establish a zone or Fidonet-wide policy that looked anything like P4, what would be the options for sysops that did not agree with it? Move to another zone or leave Fidonet? Once you get past net and regional policies you run a very real risk of alienating too many sysops to the detriment of network. In my opinion we're moving too far down this slippery slope and losing site of the idea that this hobby is just that, a hobby. These actions on a large scale can be damaging.

Laws are necessary in society to protect citizens and their property. When was the last time a Fidonet sysop stuck his or her hand through your monitor screen and tried to lift your modem? :) I'm not saying there is no value in policy. There is. But it depends on what that policy is. A hobby such as ours has been policed to death. It is small wonder so many sysops ignore policy. In my opinion a successful policy must have the following traits: 1) It must be formally agreed to by the majority of those sysops it will affect, 2) it must be flexible and changeable enough to deal with changing circumstances, 3) it must cover only issues that are truly important, and 4) it must be a sysops' policy, not a policy that establishes a ruling class.

When RCs as a collective (the RCC), and without a sysop mandate, try to force things onto sysops, it is a mistake. This is in sharp contrast to regions like ours that DO have a sysop mandate to create the policies that affect our regions. I have no quarrel with properly mandated actions and I doubt that you do either. However, I believe you made the point that if we were to try to force our regional policies onto sysops outside of our regions we would be wrong to do so. It is just as wrong to force this (non)election onto the sysops of Zone 1. Presenting arguments is fine, as it allows sysops to decide the issues for themselves. But for RCs to ignore those sysop-made decisions by forcing their will onto the sysops it is not fine. We clearly need a mandate, which leads to my next point.

A poll was conducted and the vast majority of sysops in Zone 1 that responded to the poll wanted true sysop-level voting for this election. Why have the RCs ignored that mandate in favour of trying to force their own election rules onto the zone's sysops? Worse, they added insult to injury by trying to force their own election rules onto the zone's sysops by also trying once again to force their own policy document onto the zone's sysops. A mandate for neither has ever been established. This is abusive RCC behavior.

The RCC have been guilty of at least six actions that have been harmful and divisive to this network. 1) Most importantly, they have ignored the mandate (or lack of one) of the sysops, 2) without a mandate, they have tried to force their policy document onto the sysops, 3) without a mandate, they have tried to force election rules onto the sysops, 4) without a mandate, they have attempted to combine the above actions in an attempt to further force the sysops, 5) without a mandate, they have placed their self-interest ahead of the interests of the sysops, and 6) without a mandate, they have attempted to set themselves up as their own electorate.

The RCC do not have a mandate from Zone 1 sysops to do any of the above. They need that mandate, otherwise they are simply a self-serving entity with no redeeming value to the zone.

This Z1C (non)election is wrong on all counts.

Darrell
darrell@sprk.com

By: Darrell Salter
To: All
Re: Relay from Region 12

* Original message posted in: Z1REGCON.
* Crossposted in: FN_SYSOP, Z1C, Z1_ELECTION, FIDONEWS.

Hello All!

I have been asked to relay for following regarding the Z1C Election...

1. Regional policies apply regionally only. They do NOT affect the RCC body, therefore regional policies do not apply to any election rules implemented by the RCC.
2. If all RCs must agree to sysop-level voting, then ALL RCs must agree to any and all forms of voting, including RC-voting on a sysop-representational basis. Since R12C is NOT in agreement with the current election scheme, the current election must not proceed and must be halted immediately.

Notwithstanding points #1 and #2, the RCC must clarify, and justify, to the sysops of Zone 1 the following:

3. Clarify and Justify to the sysops of Zone 1 the difference between election draft A and election draft C.
4. Clarify and Justify to the sysops of Zone 1 why election draft A was rejected solely for the purpose of preventing all sysop-level votes from determining the outcome of the election.
5. Clarify to the sysops of Zone 1 that the sysops that did express opinions on the current election scheme were not aware of the previous points, and that these previous points meant the removal of of the right to vote from all Zone 1 sysops.

Darrell
darrell@sprk.com

By: Ruth Argust
To: Jerry Schwartz
Re: ZC Election Procedures

Hi Jerry.

Jerry Schwartz wrote in a message to Ruth Argust:

RA> Not really. In the above example, there would be 6 opposing votes who could have revised the draft to something similar to version A and passed it.

JS> The simple fact (regardless of what anyone might desire) is that the status quo is in accord with P4, and didn't really require ratification. It's just a schedule, with a set of recommendations which (as we all know) is not binding on the RCs.

First, I would think it would require ratification if only as to all the wording, dates, etc. Second, many sysops don't understand it is not binding on the RCs. Even in just reading this one echo, you will note that some are thinking that their regional vote is binding on their RCs when it is not.

JS> If 6, 7, or 9 of us had been in favor of sysop-level voting we would still have had no way of binding ANY RC, regardless of how they voted in the matter of election rules, to follow the results of a plebiscite.

While they may be true, those 6, 7 or 9 could vote as the sysops chose and the Z1C would be elected by an absolute majority.

JS> It is being argued that the current rules do not force the RCs to conduct plebiscites and vote according to the results. In point of fact, neither did version "A." There is no enforcement mechanism available.

Only the word of the RCs involved. As someone here stated, "if the sysops of a region cannot trust their RC, that RC can/should be removed by the regional sysops."

*ruth*