Hello Janis,

>>>> Point is that it wasn't Bob Satti.
>>>> And how did it not become Bob Satti? Because he resigned!
>>> There is no point in arguing this, because there are valid
>>> 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.

 > 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 allows it. Policy has been violated before. With or without the ZC's
consent...

>>> Bob Satti may have resigned as ZC, but he _never_ resigned as IC.

>> Not all ZC's agreed he could stay on as IC however. And that means
>> he was no longer IC when he resigned as ZC.

 > 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 . 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.

 > There were others.. I have a list here somewhere, I'll find it
 > eventually.

Does not matter. The Kleinman case showes that if one ZC says 'no' a non ZC
can not be IC.

Cheers, Michiel

---