Hi Michiel,

>>>> differences of opinion, hashed and re-hashed, over whether an
>>>> IC must be a ZC.
>>> I think policy is clear: An IC must be a ZC.
>> You are wrong.

> I don't think so. As I said, I have consulted a number of native English
> speakers on this. REAL native English speakers. The English English ones.

But those would be people who were not from the same country as the writers
of Policy 4, Michiel :)  UK Engish-speaking people may have other subleties
and nuances in their language that you might mistake.  It was written by
Americans in the USA as far as I know, using American English.

>> If you were right no one would ever have agreed to let Mats sit
>> in the chair as long as he did.  Nor George Peace...
> What kind of logic is that? People run red lights. That does not mean the law

That just shows you that not once, but twice, and probably three times or
more an IC was _not_ a current ZC and may not be at some point in the
future. Should the IC have the support of the ZCs, it won't matter.  That
support is what counts.

>> What's that?  You say the ZCs decided he was no longer the IC
>> and gave in to Ward's pressure to replace Bob Satti?

> No, the ZC's decided nothing .

What a funny way to re-write history :)  I think someday you should contact
Bob Satti and ask him exactly how things developed.  He's still here.

>Read again what I wrote. Bob Satti resigned as
> ZC. And as there was no unanimous ZCC decsison that he could stay on, his
> resignation as ZC implied his resignation as IC.

What a lark :)

I'm done with this thread, enjoy yourself.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag-5