Janis Kracht wrote to Robert Bashe on Saturday June 05 2004 at 14:04:

JK>>> One of the reasons I laughed was not because we are so alike.. it
JK>>> was your view of me that I found humorous.

RB>> And what is exactly my view of you as you see it? It might also be
RB>> interesting to know what you find humorous in the present situation.

JK> You have put me in some category akin to Ward Dossche. I'm not like
JK> him at all.

In the ways that now count in fido you are. Both of you stubborn as a mule,
both intent on "victory" and both determined to humble the loser.

JK> The fact that I don't endorse a 'comprimise' in this situation is not
JK> because I am 'hard-headed', stubborn or otherwise unable to see two
JK> sides to a question. The reason I won't is because the ZCC had a valid
JK> election, according to standing policy 4 guidelines, and if I were not
JK> correct in this, 5 out of 6 ZCs would not have agreed on the matter.

Michiel van der Vlist couldn't have expressed the situation better. He
would doubtless also insist on rigorous compliance with his interpretation
of policy, and have only distain for those who disagree. Unfortunately, he
would also find that in practice, things are often different than in
theory. As you are presently finding with respect to your dealings with
Ward and Z2.

Ignore if you will my comment that there are two majorities involved in the
present situation: the majority of ZCs in the ZCC and the majority of nodes
in fido. And that both should be considered in a decision that has the
potential to initiate the end of fido.

Both you and Ward are in the wrong on this one, and whether I keep
repeating that or give up in disgust, the fact remains.

JK>>> Of course he's not going to admit that he is twisting policy.. He
JK>>> knows he's doing it though.

RB>> Does he? The evidence seems to indicate otherwise, since if that
RB>> weren't the case, why didn't he organize a ZCC vote to get rid of Bob
RB>> Satti the same way you did to get rid of Ward?

JK> Ward DID, Robert.

So let me just understand this correctly... you're saying that Ward
organized a ZCC vote to remove Bob Satti from the IC office, and that when
the votes were counted, a majority was in favor of his removal. Then Ward
was elected. Is that right?

My information, naturally not first-hand, was that Bob Satti eventually
resigned of his own accord, whether under pressure or not, but of his own
accord, and was _not_ removed by a vote of the ZCC and certainly not by one
organized by Ward Dossche. _Then_ Ward was elected IC. Are you saying
that's not true?

If you reply that the first paragraph is true and the second isn't, that
would mean that Bob Satti was recalled by exactly the same procedure as you
used this time around to recall Ward. And in that case I wonder why you
haven't been saying this loud and clear everywhere people would listen to
you, since it's a vitally important point and would seriously undercut
Ward's argument that the vote was not policy compliant.

On the other hand, if my second-hand information isn't all that inaccurate
and the situation really was as described, it would undercut _your_
position that the vote was policy compliant.

So what really did happen? And spare me the claims that Bob Satti was
"forced" out if there wasn't an actual ZCC vote to recall him.
Nothing except that vote - did it or did it not take place - is important
here.

Cheers, Bob

--- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-0613