Editorial

Darrell and editor chat about elections and policy guidelines. In response to those who say they are confused as to who says what all lines will hold author's initials, in all snooze articles.

====8<---from Fidonews echo----
DS> Hi Warren!
>
DS> This is such a good post by you. Let's try this again.
>
> Warren Bonner wrote in a message to Darrell Salter:
>
> WB> I think you were a sincere RC and had very convincing backing by
> WB> your sysops,
>
DS> Well I'm partisan here for sure, but yes, I'm proud of those
DS> Sysops. They supported me very well and I am very fortunate to
DS> have had an opportunity to serve them. I'm happy to be in Region
DS> 12. I'm sure most (ex)RCs feel the same way about their Regions.
>
> WB> but imho you should have raised hell the instant option one for
> WB> sysop level election was dropped, and worked the power lines to
> WB> the other RC's to stand tall with you.
>
DS> It is not true that I said nothing to the other RCs about this
DS> issue. I saw it as a Sysop issue and wanted it discussed in the
DS> Sysop echos. Most of the other RCs would not accommodate me (us).
DS> They wanted it discussed in the Z1REGCON echo. I believe that is
DS> because they saw it as a RC issue. They wanted me to be a RC,
DS> not a Sysop. I wanted them to be Sysops, not RCs. We were at an
DS> impasse. I continued to make it a Sysop issue and they withdrew
DS> to Z1REGCON. The rest, as they say, is history, but this
DS> election should never have been dictated by the RCC.
>
> WB> That action would have short circuited the SNAP election,
>
DS> I doubt it, but perhaps your point has merit. From my point of
DS> view it was much more important to me for the process to have
DS> been performed in concert with the Sysops of Zone 1, rather than
DS> the RCs of Zone 1. If the Sysops had come up with the election
DS> guidelines, even if they were exactly the same guidelines as
DS> what were eventually used, I would have no objections. But one
DS> RC especially would not give up the crafting of those guidelines
DS> to the Sysops. That was the first point of contention.
>
> WB> giving you and the other RC's more time in Jan. 2001 to put
> WB> together a Sysop election.
>
>DS> Then why didn't any of the other 9 RCs do it? I think you're a
>DS > little off base here.
>
> WB> I don't know
>
DS> Let's try to identify the guilty parties. The first thing that
DS> comes to mind is, isn't it just a little odd that a solitary RC
DS> is blamed for an election that 9 other RCs sanctioned? The next
DS> thing that comes to mind is, isn't it just a little odd that the
DS> Region that lobbied the most strenuously for a Sysop-level
DS> election is blamed for an election that 9 other Regions
DS> sanctioned? Where were those 9 other RC voices? Where were those
DS> 9 other Region's Sysops voices, all extolling the virtues of a
DS> true Sysop-level election? Region 12 and I lobbied the hardest
DS> for a true Sysop-level election.
>
DS> The reason I say you're a little off base is because I suspect
DS> you've fallen prey to listening to people that have been
DS> somewhat less than forthright with you and all too eager to
DS> deflect their own responsibility in this matter. That happens to
DS> all of us, especially with friends, loyalty and everything, but
DS> please try to be objective here. Many of us have been played for
DS> fools. It's not hard to understand the bitterness.
>
> WB> except time was of the essence and got rushed into it.
>
DS> Do you not recall the discussion on the time frame that Ruth
DS> expounded on with the others? There was more than enough time
DS> for a Sysop-level election. Certain people didn't want one and
DS> used P4 to thwart any attempts to have one. We both know who
DS> they are.
>
WB>Yes, and at that time, (the day of Ward's resignation with cut
WB>date), I too professed that an IMMEDIATE sysop election was
WB>possible time wise. Two more weeks went by in bickering, then
WB>Stewart called a poll. Another few days and Carol accepted ECship.
WB>Her first draft was sysop compliant... and was rejected by Dallas
WB>and Jim I was told. Then with no consensus a new draft, and a
WB>final "C" draft was accepted by the RC's. Thus the "RC" election.
WB>NOW to my point to you was: Stop the train. WHO says that
WB>the majority of the RC's can be overruled??? P4??? That is where
WB>the phone lines should have been burning up. RC's are sysops FIRST
WB>RC's second by elections already established. They have a majority
WB>rule right, and should tell the descending minority to abide their
WB>decision. That's standard protocol.
>
DS> Rather than directing your energy at the few that did speak up
DS> favourably in this regard, that did expend the energy to gather
DS> Sysop input via a poll (which was also thwarted I might add),
DS> perhaps you should be asking serious questions of the people
DS> that were responsible for killing Option #1, also known as Draft
DS> A. This was not a good election, Warren, not for Sysops.
>
> WB> Anyhow the snap election turned out very well
>
DS> Some people do not think so and that's not a criticism of Janis
DS> but of the system. I personally believe we have some terrific
DS> people that survive in this hobby not because of the system but
DS> in spite of it. Unfortunately it only takes a few bad apples and
DS> a bad system to do some serious damage.
>
WB> Amen to that, and "bad apples" all seem to have a Nepoleonic EGO.
>
DS> Consider, P4 was the tool that thwarted a true Sysop-level
DS> election in our Z1C election and that was immediately followed
DS> by an obscene P4 event involving the IC. Frankly, Fidonet's
DS> history is littered with obscene P4 events.
DS>
> WB> and did save the time required to have a Z1C in place for the
> WB> 5th of Jan. 2001.
>
DS> There were any number of ways of getting a Z1C in place by Jan
DS> 5th. I don't think the best one was used.
>
WB>True, a Pro Tem Z1C for one.
>
> WB> Just whistling in the dark now. It is done. Complete. Final.
>
>DS> It was final the moment 9 RCs said it was. But if you want to
>DS> blame the one RC that wouldn't go along with it be my guest.
>
> WB> OK, perhaps "Darrell's `fault'", is heavy in that light.
> WB> Perhaps I should have said `objection'.
>
DS> I'll thank you for that. It's easy to look for an convenient
DS> target and single out a scapegoat. It's a little harder to be
DS> objective and ask if we really did the right thing, especially
DS> when it's pretty clear to at least some of us that we didn't.
DS> I've made mistakes, no doubt about it. We all do. But I don't
DS> see a lot of objectivity when it comes to admitting them. I do
DS> see a lot of ill-conceived finger pointing though. This election
DS> was handled very badly. That became apparent early on and rather
DS> than admit it and correct it, the truly responsible parties
DS> started pointing fingers at the scapegoat(s).
>
> WB> Stewart is beating a dead horse.
>
>DS> Stewart is pointing and saying 'Look at the dead horse!'.
>DS> The real question is, who killed it?
>
> WB> The RC's who appointed EC's to take every voting sysops vote and
> WB> report the majority's preference to their RC, who voted their
> WB> regions choice?
>
DS> Yes, I'm afraid so, because they already had draft A which
DS> included the right for the Sysop to vote directly. They took
DS> that right away and they used P4 to do it.
>
DS> Yes, because there still is no accountability to the Sysops.
>
DS> Yes, because Sysops that had hopes that things were moving in a
DS> better direction were disappointed by their RCs when those hopes
DS> were dashed.
>
DS> The dead horse should be a concern, Warren, because it was the
DS> hope for real Sysop's rights. If we'd had any we would have had
DS> a true Sysop-level election. But we don't. The *Cs have the
DS> rights, so we had a *C-level election as sanctioned by the *C
DS> policy document, P4.
>
> WB> Point is we already know that why echo it over and over for
> WB> days and weeks....? IF it made one IOTA of difference, or
> WB> could make any difference, it would be sensible, otherwise
> WB> it is not sensible.
>
DS> Because many of us are still unhappy about a system than
DS> empowers *Cs and we are voicing that displeasure. Would you
DS> see even that little scrap taken away too?
>
DS> Darrell
>
WB>No, definitely not. But, may I offer a more productive method of
WB>expressing your "unhappiness". Both you and Stewart are very
WB>articulate. Use your talents to build a Zone election policy, then
WB>promote it. It could become acceptable to all zones and amend P4
WB>at some future date.

WB>We obviously need a Zone Election Policy to prevent this kind of
WB>abstention that disenfranchised your region's sysop from the other
WB>regions that did vote. A divided Zone will always fail it's duty.
WB>That duty being the hobby harmony that nurtures good will by all.
WB>We have a civil duty to as, civilized entities, be constructive.

WB>It is better to work earnestly within the existing system to change
WB>it where necessary due to time and technological changes, than to
WB>ignore it and lash out demeaningly at the rest of the body of the
WB><zone. You become an island unto yourself in so doing.

WB>IMHO, you and the other dissenters of this election, are far too
WB>valuable to lose. I hope you all will consider my humble opinion
WB>and work to unite and heal and make the changes you want with a
WB>new zone one guideline or policy.

Ol'wdb

Thom replied to Ol'wdb:
WB> Well analyzed Thom!

TLC>Thanks!

WB> Plus we have a new level head at Z1 controls.
WB> I hope the other zones improve as much in the
WB> coming year, as we have in this zone.

TLC> I second that thought. If they don't, it's gonna be a long,
TLC> uphill fight.

WB> Personally, I don't see a need for a "IC" hat. The extra
WB> tie-breaking vote? Oh well I am happy with our NA Zone One now,
WB> and any of the candidates could have been a fine Z1C, and
WB> qualified to become the IC if the ZCC just has to have a
WB> tie-breaker.

TLC> Yes, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for an IC...and especially one defined as the most equal of equal peers. The current IC's actions are a perfect example of "Some animals are more equal than others."

TLC> If there needs to be an IC, it most likely should be someone that is NOT a current ZC, thus, you'd have and uneven number of votes, and someone who, theoretically, is removed from a zone issue.

TLC> But, considered what's mandated by P4, we all need to carefully watch, as much as we can, the actions of the ZC's. I would hope that in addition to posts in public echoes, Fidonet members communicate in very clear terms their opinions.

TLC> While there is no mandate that the ZC's must listen, if we don't communicate, we're giving them an easy out to decide as best they can...and we have ample proof that their last selection of IC was not in the best interests of Fidonet.

Thom LaCosta
baltimoremd@baltimoremd.com
http://www.baltimoremd.com/
---
* Origin: Home of The Other Robot (1:261/1352)