Hello Bob

28 May 04 07:21, you wrote to me:

RB|> "Suddenly"? I can remember back to the days Ward started up
RB|> ZCC-PUBLIC. Can't really say the idea of opening the echo read-only
RB|> was all that sudden.

And at that time he stated that only messages originating on /his/ keyboard
would be cross-posted.  He has gone against his word.

Seems that is yet another example of him being untrustworthy.

RB|> And as far as my own comments are concerned, sure they have something
RB|> to do with the present situation and the way it was exacerbated by the
RB|> attempted secrecy. I personally gained some interesting insights by
RB|> reading the archive, and in contrast to the fears some have - Malcolm
RB|> in particular - I didn't find any villains lurking with knives to
RB|> carve up anyone else, nor did I see anything particularly
RB|> reprehensible or even wildly exciting. Just some facts, instead of
RB|> speculation. I found that refreshing.

Yes.  But there was no reason that the echo needs be made public.  Yes it
was nice to see that there was no plotting going on, but still no reason
why it has to be public.

RB|> You're confusing Z2 with Ward, and assuming Ward has no ground to
RB|> stand on. I disagree in both cases, and think that both sides of the
RB|> present disagreement have their points. The only peoblem is that
RB|> neither side is 100% right, and neither 100% wrong. As soon as both
RB|> recognize that and start to work together instead of to cross
RB|> purposes, the faster the situation will be resolved.

Possibly.  But Ward has made some grave errors that are 100% wrong.  His
"interpretation" is wrong.  He tried to redefine the voting in a
situation where it is clearly defined.

================
7.2  Selection

The International Coordinator is selected (or removed) by an absolute majori-
ty vote of the Zone Coordinators.
================

There is no room for interpretation.  In doing so, Ward has rewritten
Policy without following the guidelines to do so as written in Policy
(Section 8).  Clearly, he has violated Policy.

RC>> That the ZCC plots behind that backs of sysops is one.

RB|> Is it? I saw a lot of confusion and some disagreement, but
"plotting"?

I was speaking of what some sysops tend to think happens in the echo.  I
was not saying that is what they were doing.

RB|> Your opinion. Others may not share it, certainly not in the sweeping
RB|> sense you express it.

No?  Tell me how Ward's rewrite of Policy is helpful?

RB|> Also an assumption that is not shared by all. But I agree that my
RB|> opinion, as yours, does not affect the situation. However, we both
RB|> seem to be voicing our respective opinions without any regard for
RB|> that...

It seems the only ones that don't share that opinion are the ones Ward has
in his "camp."

The timing the audacity and the sheer gall of Ward's attempt to rewrite
Policy wreak of nothing but a Power Play.

How can you say it isn't so?

RC>> It would take an illogical brain to state that the IC must be the
RC>> one to call for his own removal.

RB|> Read back to see what I wrote about that at the beginning. I wrote
RB|> something similar, but naturally my opinion - and yours - has no
RB|> bearing on the actual situation. There's more than one illogical
RB|> section in policy, as you are surely aware.

Logically it has to stand.  The IC is not a life time position as Ward is
trying to make it.

RC>> It is incorrect to suggest that Section 8 of Policy be used to
RC>> remove an IC as one Z2 node suhhested recently.  That is only for
RC>> Policy changes and ZC impeachments.

RB|> Possibly. But as I've remarked elsewhere, policy is like the Bible:
RB|> you can interpret nearly anything from and into it if you want.

Since there is nothing in that section that deals with Impeaching an IC,
there is no room for interpretation.  The ONLY mention of IC is the section
that deals on who may call for the Impeachment of a ZC - the Zone who the
person is ZC - even if that person is IC.)  Since the section is devoted to
impeaching a ZC ONLY, that is all it can be refered to.  Since the ZCC did
/not/ impeach the Z2C (because they can't) this part of Section 8 has no
bearing in any form.

RB|> You're insisting on a "100%" solution that nobody is
going to accept.
RB|> The other "100%" solution would be that Malcolm agrees his election
RB|> was invalid, and Ward's change in the voting rules sticks. Nobody is
RB|> going to accept those either. The situation is never going to be
RB|> resolved as long as any of the sides demand _their_ position be
RB|> accepted 100%.

Well let's see:

The ZCC used Policy to remove Ward as IC and replace him with Malcom.  The
ZCC is 6 ZC's.  Section 7.2 says " ... an absolute majority vote of
the Zone Coordinators ..."  That would be 4.  There was five against
one person that did what?

As a single entity, rewrote Policy without following the procedures as set
forth in Policy.  He attempted to use a section of Policy (the one on
Interpretation) against something that was not in need of interpretation
because it was clealy defined: Section 7.2.  (" ... an absolute
majority vote of the Zone Coordinators ...") There is nothing open to
interpretation.  There are six Zone Coordinators.  This is not a vague
number. There is nothing there that is uncertain about it and there is
nothing that says "as based on Zone population"  Or that the ZC's
have to poll their Zones.  Or that the ZC's must consult their Zones.
Nothing.

The point of the IC being the one that counts ballots and runs elections is
the only sticking point.  And it is obvious to anyone that when it comes to
the removal of an IC, it would be a clear conflict of interest to think
that the IC would be in charge of his own removal.

I think we agreed on that :)

RB|> You mean, first let one side win 100%, the other agreeing to lose
RB|> 100%, and _then_ we'll see what can be done? That's a dream. Any
RB|> resolution of the situation is going to be a compromise.

Let's weigh that fact as above.  Who commited the most heinous acts here? 
Or the most?

Think about it carefully.  Ward made the most greivous actions in a vain
attempt to hold the IC hat.  He made decrees after the fact and tried to
make them retroactive.  He had made threats against the ZCC with his
"you will see how the IC can overrule the ZCC around the end of
May" (several dates were posted.)  I will rewrite sections of Policy
and apply them to other sections who did not have room for interpretation.

Ward made "threats" that Z5 & Z6 "should not
exist."  He made derogatory remarks about the intelligence of the Z6C.

The ZCC as a group voted Ward out and Malcom in as IC.  The only argument
is the one above WRT conflict of interest and the IC being in charge and
counting ballots for his own removeal.

What else did the ZCC do wrong?

They didn't discuss it in public or in the ZCC echo - not a requirement of Policy.

One ZC's existance was questioned.  However, be that as it may, he was
still listed as ZC.  And as long as he is listed as ZC, there is nothing
that can be done about it.  If he should be removed, that is a different
ballgame.  That he violated Policy by not observing ZMH is a matter that
needs to be addressed. However, it cannot be used to change the vote.

RC>> There was on rather good proposal from a Z2 sysop in FN_SYSOP
RC>> about using a log10 weighted vote.  It made some sense and might
RC>> actually work.

RB|> As I mentioned. But that's only one piece in the puzzle.

It seems to be a very big piece as it is the foundation of Ward trying to
make himself IC for life.

RB|> Finger-pointing, as I've mentioned elsewhere, is not a constructive
RB|> method for reducing tensions and resolving disputes.

Stating verfiable facts is not finger pointing.  Look above.  No both sides
are not 100% right.  But the ZCC did it's best to follow P4 to the letter,
whereas Ward did far too many things against P4.

Robert

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-RuneKeep