02 May 06 11:08, Vladimir Donskoy wrote to Roy Witt:

 VD> Hi Roy!

 VD> Friday April 28 2006, Roy Witt wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 VD>>>>> Read Policy 8.6 - it is not require quorum! So - all this
 VD>>>>> elections are realized.

 RW>>>> 8.6 refers to voting on policy changes, not elections.

 VD>>> No, 8.7.2 have link to 8.6 - so quorum is not exist for election
 VD>>> ZC.

 RW>> Nope. That section applies is in addition to 8.6 and is still
 RW>> addressing policy changes. The fact is, there is nothing in policy
 RW>> that applies to elections. Basically because there weren't supposed
 RW>> to be any elections held by sysops.

 VD> Are you read Policy :-) ?

Yes, I am.

 VD> === Begin Windows Clipboard ===
 VD> 8.7  Impeachment of a Zone Coordinator

 VD> [...skip...]

 VD> 8.7.2  Procedure as in Policy Referendum

 VD> The provisions of sections 8.2 and 8.3 apply to impeachment
 VD> referenda.

An impeachment referenda only.

 VD> The definition of "majority" in section 8.6 applies.  Only
 VD> coordinators in the affected zone vote (even if the zone coordinator
 VD> is also the Internation- al Coordinator).
 VD> ===  End Windows Clipboard  ===

In an impeachment referendum and that only. It says nothing about any
other kind of elections, as in a referandum to secede from a Fidonet Zone.

 RW>>>> An election as you've described above would be administered under
 RW>>>> a region policy. If R50? doesn't have a region policy, there are
 RW>>>> plenty of examples in Z1 that can be used as a reference to make
 RW>>>> your region policy. Z1's R12, R13 and R18 all have a very good
 RW>>>> example and select their RC in this way by votes from every sysop
 RW>>>> in the region who wishes to participate in that election.  I have
 RW>>>> a copy of each just for the asking.

 VD>>> All elections in our region have make to this principle - all
 VD>>> sysops voting. We have not "write" Regional
Policy, but we have it
 VD>>> "in the head".

 RW>> Better to have it in writing so that there's no mis-understandings
 RW>> later.

 VD> May be, but now we have not it.

I'll send you one and you can present it, edit it and mull it over so your
region has one.

 RW>>>>>> In the real world, the votes would be tallied
and the election
 RW>>>>>> finished.

 RW>>>>>> In Doosche's world, the election would be a
failure because
 RW>>>>>> there wasn't a majority turnout.

 VD>>>>> Policy require majority votes for start elections and sample
 VD>>>>> count votes on election process result.

 RW>>>> Policy says that only RCs can vote for the ZC, but in a
democratic
 RW>>>> Fidonet, that isn't how it works anymore. In Z1, every sysop is
 RW>>>> elegible to vote. However, their RC has the vote per policy, but
 RW>>>> the RC's vote is weighted by the majority of their sysops vote.

 VD>>> What do you think that FIDO is democratic :-) ? I think that FIDO
 VD>>> is "constitution monarchy" (by Policy as
Constitution) :-( .

 RW>> I don't believe in Fidonet Policy...I don't bother to comply with
 RW>> that which I think no longer applies. That's democracy.

 VD> With it it would be possible to argue, as when you have entered to
 VD> FIDO, you have accepted its Policy

That's one thing I never did.

 VD>  (differently you would not have the right on the node address).

I seem to have one anyway.

 VD> However now it and really so out-of-date document that it is easier
 VD> to reconsider it than to demand its unconditional performance

Not even *Cs follow it to the letter. Only people like van der Vlist
insist that it be followed precisely. He ever files policy complaints when
he sees someone violating it.

 VD> [...skip...]

 VD>>> For it need as minimum starting of election, that he is not want.

 RW>> But elsewhere in these echoes (FN_SYSOP, FIODNEWS), he's stated that
 RW>> he's asked the sysops of Z2 if they would like to hold a ZC election
 RW>> and there is no reply in the positive.

 RW>> Another double standard?

 VD> WOW! He wrote previous mail about elections, so he review his
 VD> position. May be when start election and we can change Z2C...

If he holds you to policy, you won't. But, he's stated here that he'd be
happy to have a one sysop, one vote election for ZC. Of course, like a
baby crying over spilled milk, he's also said that it'd be the end of his
Fidonet days.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000