;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.