Hello Janis,

>>>> 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.

You are getting too predictable. I knew you were going to say that. And of
course we could narrow it down. use of language differs across the US an as
plocy was mostly written by people in Califorbia and the Southern states,
so someone from say New York may not be the right person to consult on how
to interpret P4.

But it does not hold. P4 says that the official language of FidoNet is
English. Not US English, just English. And English is what they speak in
England.

>>> 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

That it happened does not mean it was not a violation of policy.

 > 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.

Clearly Bob Satti did NOt have the support of all the ZC's when he wanted
to remain IC after having resigned as ZC.

Having a non ZC as IC is fine with me if all ZC's support him/her. Panlo
Kleinman would have made a fine IC imho.

As I said, it does not matter any more. The IC position has become an empty hat.

Just don't try to make me believe the way things went was in any way
"fair".

Cheers, Michiel

---