Robert Couture wrote to Robert Bashe on Thursday May 27 2004 at 17:39:

RB>> All I'm doing is pointing out that it's folly to believe any echo
RB>> could be kept private, and that attempting to enforce that in the
RB>> case of an echo whose content affects fido as an organization, at a
RB>> time where the people concerned disagree among themselves what, how
RB>> and why things were written is a sure way to lose confidence and
RB>> trust.

RC> Sudden requiring that the ZCC echo be made public after how long that
RC> it was private is a sure way to form an opinion that was not there
RC> until Ward pulled his act.

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

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

So now, why should that be negative?

RC> No matter how yopu look at it, people are going to twist this to
RC> whatever they want to twist it to.  Z2 people are trying to force
RC> things into being that are just not there.

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

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

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

RB>> I'm also addressing _all_ the ZCs although I'm in Z2 because all of
RB>> them are involved in something that is detrimental to fido. I didn't
RB>> do that before either, since there was no reason to do so. But there
RB>> is now.

RC> They have done nothing detrimental to Fido.  What they did was a boon
RC> to FidoNet - they removed an IC that was doing things against Policy.

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

RC> Whether or not you agree with what was done is irrelevent as it was
RC> done according to Policy.

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

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

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

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

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

RC> Now, instead of Ward continuing to beleive that he is IC and that is
RC> monstrosity that was his edict is in force, perhaps he should act like
RC> a mature individual and step aside.  Let Malcom do something for the
RC> betterment of all of FidoNet.

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

RC> Let everyone quit bemoaning things and look to making improvements
RC> that all can work within.

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

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

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

RC> Unlike Ward's Z2 is the lord over everyone which is not the right way
RC> to do things. It alienates too many and makes Z2 look like Ogres.

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

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613