Hi Matt,

>> Part of the discussion with Ward is getting that way because people
>> may think it matters somehow that he still perceives himself as IC.
>> It doesn't really matter what he thinks.  The ZCs made their choice
>> known and that does matter.

>But it does matter if there are two Fidonets.  I wish people would acknowledge
> that this is indeed a problem.

I don't see it as two Fidonets.. I see each Zone as it's always been,
autonomous so to speak, with each ZC having the final say in their own
Zone. This is the way it's been in Fidonet since we've had Zones and policy
4, and this is the way I believe it should stay.  No one living in another
Zone can really know the needs and problems of another zone at certain
levels. Sure, the International Coordinator must make it his business to
know what's going on in all the Zones, but not at the lower levels of a
particular zone.

>  If Ward is a problem then perhaps the ZCC
> should vote to replace him?  If his zone is not happy with him as people
> suggest then this should not be a problem, correct?

There is nothing in policy which would allow the ZCC to remove and select a
new ZC in another zone outside of their own.  ZCs are selected by the RCs
of that zone.  Now, the ZCC can and did vote to remove the IC when Ward was
IC and installed Malcolm as IC.

>>> It is one of those cases where each
>>> person believes themself to be 100% right when that is not the case.
>>> I had a theory once that once people reach a precieved level of
>>> influence that their ability or willingness to compromise is
>>> directly disproporitional to the level they occupy.  The ZC and IC
>>> seats are as "high" as one can go .. :-(

>> I'm not sure I agree with that, at least in this case.  It was quite
>> clear that what Ward attempted to do was outside policy 4.

>I believe that policy allows the IC to interpret policy, not rewrite it, which
> is exactly what he is attempting.  Remember the policy change proposal?  If
> what he says is true then he would not need anyone as he could ammend any
> change to policy unilaterally.

This is something that has been pointed out to Ward over and over again.

>  Also, if he can make such revisions then what
>purpose do the rest of the coordinators serve and the checks and balances that
> were apparently written into policy?  Fault logic if you ask me.  :-)

It is faulty logic, and serves no purpose but to further his own agenda.
The checks and balances, and explanations of what can be changed in P4 were
included for just such a situation as this one.

Take care,
Janis

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