169 lines
9.0 KiB
Plaintext
169 lines
9.0 KiB
Plaintext
;Date 25 Nov 92 03:54:25
|
|
From: George Peace@1:0/0
|
|
To: Tom Jennings@1:125/111
|
|
Subject: Re: IC
|
|
Options:
|
|
;Status: recv'd (read 2 times)
|
|
|
|
[Tom. Here's my rebuttal to one of two similar declarations in the ZCC echo.
|
|
Just fyi. But I don't place any restrictions on it. Thanks for your time this
|
|
PM. Glad we talked before I read Ron's messages. I felt better. -- gp]
|
|
|
|
* Message is Forwarded by George Peace On 1:13/13
|
|
* Originally to Ron Dwight On 13/13
|
|
* Original message from area ZCC
|
|
* Message originally created at
|
|
|
|
> George's handling of his own replacement
|
|
> election is a total farce and he has demonstrated a
|
|
> disrespect for policy which has to be seen to be
|
|
> believed. If this is how he acts as a ZC, I would hate
|
|
> to think what would happen as IC. Sorry, NO WAY.
|
|
|
|
Seen to be believed? Then you've seen something? And haven't relied on
|
|
second-hand reports, propaganda, and the dreaded rumours to make your
|
|
conclusion?
|
|
|
|
Or have you already made up your mind some time ago and find this a good way
|
|
to explain it?
|
|
|
|
There's something wrong with this picture Ron. Are my 2+ years as ZC worth
|
|
nothing? Is there something in our past that caused you to jump on the "George
|
|
is a jerk" bandwagon after this incident? Or are we just miscommunicating as
|
|
we tend to do occasionally? I sincerely hope that's it. You and I disagree.
|
|
That's good. We don't need robots and rubber stamps. But I thought we could
|
|
disagree in a friendly way without attacking character or qualification.
|
|
|
|
Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me why you disagree. But please don't amplify one
|
|
propaganda incident into personality and character issues.
|
|
|
|
I don't judge you based on rumors and propaganda. I seek you out and talk
|
|
straight. I don't think that's too much to ask. I also don't think it's
|
|
unreasonable to consider a person's beliefs and demonstrated record over a
|
|
long period before declaring them incompetent. I've been ZC for 2 and a half
|
|
years Ron. If each of us were to be judged on one or 2 situations of another's
|
|
chosing I dare say none of us would be anything beyond a smudge in FidoNet
|
|
history today.
|
|
|
|
Let's talk issues. And let's talk policy. You've repeated rumors in two
|
|
consecutive messages. I will assume that you believed what you read and spoke
|
|
in good faith. I hope you'll read beyond my emotion and come away with a
|
|
better understanding of what policy, reputation, and integrity mean to me as a
|
|
person as well as a FidoNet sysop.
|
|
|
|
Let's review policy 4. The one the propagandists say I've so severely
|
|
disregarded. Let's all ask ourselves how each of us [who was elected] was
|
|
elected to our current position. Let's see how directly policy was followed in
|
|
every case. Were any elected ZCs placed in office by a direct vote By SysOps?
|
|
By NCs? Were any process stipulations offered? Were timetables stated? Were
|
|
candidates solicited? Was campaigning allowed or required? Were vote results
|
|
announced? To the misinformed or misaligned any yes response demonstrates
|
|
disrespect for policy. Any yes response is a clear indication that policy was
|
|
made up as the *C team went along. After all, the propaganda being flung about
|
|
says that anything not explicitly written in the ZC election process policy is
|
|
a blatant disregard for said policy. Let's not even start in on NC or RC
|
|
elections. I'd never be done.
|
|
|
|
The fellow who filed the complaint against me -- itself technically in
|
|
violation of the policy folks love to quote but rarely read -- may be in
|
|
FidoNet today because I overturned excommunications by 2 *C-dictators who
|
|
didn't like what he was saying in public. Excommunication as an unchecked
|
|
Coordinator weapon is a dangerous thing. Making hasty decisions and then
|
|
rationalizing them behind creative policy quotes is a deplorable act. I
|
|
refused to allow *Cs to make up new policies to justify their actions. That
|
|
attitude has not changed. Those who make up policy or over-interpret it to
|
|
justify their actions get no respect or sympathy from me.
|
|
|
|
Amplifying slightly so I can be quoted lated... Elected coordinators must
|
|
never be removed except by those who voted them into office. That means all
|
|
positions. To do otherwise violates the democratic principles I support for
|
|
FidoNet.
|
|
|
|
Now let's look at some facts rather than propaganda.
|
|
|
|
Let's examine the policy based reasoning I used to establish the election
|
|
stipulation and how I later tried and failed to change it. Things I wasn't
|
|
going to bring up here until it appears that my character has been questioned
|
|
in regard to my qualifications to honor policy and hold a *C position.
|
|
|
|
I might say in private that I think policy sucks but I will not go out in
|
|
public setting it on fire. I believe that any coordinator who willfully
|
|
violates or disregards policy deserves the worst we can dish out. Such
|
|
coordinators cannot be trusted to sit as judge over policy complaints against
|
|
others.
|
|
|
|
As I prepared for the interim [to complete my one year term] replacement I
|
|
first asked the RCs how the blessed event should be handled. They chose
|
|
election. And so the games began.
|
|
|
|
After two previous Z1C election experiences I felt we needed a procedure for
|
|
the interim replacement process. I looked to policy for guidance. There was
|
|
none in the ZC selection procedure. It is weak and incomplete. Any of us who
|
|
has read the section knows that. We know it offers no indication of how
|
|
candidates are selected and how the RCs are polled for their votes. It makes
|
|
no mention of whether the process should be closed or open to all. It requires
|
|
that we make up the rules as we go. Sometimes those made up rules aren't the
|
|
most popular.
|
|
|
|
So I looked beyond that section. The only other policy section covering
|
|
elections is the IC selection. That one says the IC is selected from his
|
|
peers. The ZCC already ruled that it means the IC must be a ZC. So lacking any
|
|
verbage in the ZC selection section, knowing that this was an interim event to
|
|
complete the remaining 6 months of my one year term, and not wanting the
|
|
process to take 6 months, I extrapolated the stipulation from the IC procedure
|
|
and clearly indicated to the RCs that this stipulation would not be carried
|
|
into the formal ZC election in May. It seemed reasonable enough. After all, we
|
|
were holding an election. Democracy prevailed within the guidelines offered in
|
|
policy.
|
|
|
|
Well, a few days later exactly one RC challenged the stipulation. We debated
|
|
for a message or 2 and I started thinking about the situation. I looked up and
|
|
realized that with 4 RCs of 10 left over from the appointment years and only 5
|
|
elected RCs in place my stipulation, no matter how I rationalized it, was a
|
|
bad one. So I went to the RCs. I was less than polite with my suggestion that
|
|
some of them should follow my lead and make room for new blood. No takers. I
|
|
also indicated that I didn't have any problem with non-RCs being on the ballot
|
|
and they could solicit from all of Z1 if they felt it appropriate. Only that
|
|
one RC spoke. Non-RCs continued to be rejected by Rc concensus. My "mistake"
|
|
at that point was giving the RCs control of the rules. It seemed democratic do
|
|
do that. They were offered a choice. I added to my public demise I told them
|
|
my job as ZC was to take the heat for the decision. I thought it would be the
|
|
usual flamers. I certainly never anticipated that my taking resonsibility for
|
|
the concensus of the RCs would be used to judge me here in ZCC.
|
|
|
|
I can take alot of flames. We all have to do that as public figures. But I
|
|
believe I deserve the courtesy of being permitted to state my case before
|
|
being declared incompetent by a fellow ZC.
|
|
|
|
Ron, I thought you of all people must know the emotion a person can feel when
|
|
another states something about him that's not true. I thought you above all
|
|
others must know how important it is to hear the truth before repeating
|
|
stories.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
This evening I spoke at length with Tom Jennings about the situation and how
|
|
his last 2 editorials may have fueled the fires and pointed fingers of blame
|
|
at me. Tom and I have had several "you're too quotable" conversations over the
|
|
years. It applies to all high profile folks in FidoNet.
|
|
|
|
His complaints are against the process created by the policy, not at the *Cs
|
|
or people. We're at fault only because we are here today and policy has not
|
|
changed in spite of many campaign promises by current *Cs.
|
|
|
|
Tom wants policy changed. He thinks parts of policy itself are a farce. But he
|
|
respects the process enough to want to change it rather than simply declare it
|
|
void and make up rules as he goes along. I dare say that describes you and me
|
|
and the rest of this group too.
|
|
|
|
Tom and I agree that policy needs to change. We've "violated" it too often by
|
|
trying to be democratic in our own ways. We've proven that policy cannot
|
|
easily be rewritten and replaced. So we need to go to an incremental approach.
|
|
First things first. We need to change the process by which changes are offered
|
|
and ratified. Then we can attack one section at a time. It's less dramatic
|
|
than a worldpol. And it'll take longer. But we'll see results rather than
|
|
lobbying and battle.
|
|
|
|
I'll shut up now. Your turn. <wink>
|
|
|