;Date      25 Nov 92 03:54:25
From:      George Peace@1:0/0
To:        Tom Jennings@1:125/111
Subject:   Re: IC
Options:   
;Status:   recv'd (read 2 times)

[Tom. Here's my rebuttal to one of two similar declarations in the ZCC echo. 
Just fyi. But I don't place any restrictions on it. Thanks for your time this 
PM. Glad we talked before I read Ron's messages. I felt better.  -- gp]  

* Message is Forwarded by George Peace On 1:13/13
* Originally to Ron Dwight On 13/13
* Original message from area ZCC
* Message originally created at 

 >           George's handling of his own replacement 
 > election is a total farce and he has demonstrated a 
 > disrespect for policy which has to be seen to be 
 > believed.  If this is how he acts as a ZC, I would hate 
 > to think what would  happen as IC.  Sorry, NO WAY.
   
Seen to be believed? Then you've seen something? And haven't relied on 
second-hand reports, propaganda, and the dreaded rumours to make your 
conclusion? 

Or have you already made up your mind some time ago and find this a good way 
to explain it? 

There's something wrong with this picture Ron. Are my 2+ years as ZC worth 
nothing? Is there something in our past that caused you to jump on the "George 
is a jerk" bandwagon after this incident? Or are we just miscommunicating as 
we tend to do occasionally? I sincerely hope that's it. You and I disagree. 
That's good. We don't need robots and rubber stamps. But I thought we could 
disagree in a friendly way without attacking character or qualification.  

Tell me I'm wrong. Tell me why you disagree. But please don't amplify one 
propaganda incident into personality and character issues. 

I don't judge you based on rumors and propaganda. I seek you out and talk 
straight. I don't think that's too much to ask. I also don't think it's 
unreasonable to consider a person's beliefs and demonstrated record over a 
long period before declaring them incompetent. I've been ZC for 2 and a half 
years Ron. If each of us were to be judged on one or 2 situations of another's 
chosing I dare say none of us would be anything beyond a smudge in FidoNet 
history today.  

Let's talk issues. And let's talk policy. You've repeated rumors in two 
consecutive messages. I will assume that you believed what you read and spoke 
in good faith. I hope you'll read beyond my emotion and come away with a 
better understanding of what policy, reputation, and integrity mean to me as a 
person as well as a FidoNet sysop.  

Let's review policy 4. The one the propagandists say I've so severely 
disregarded. Let's all ask ourselves how each of us [who was elected] was 
elected to our current position. Let's see how directly policy was followed in 
every case. Were any elected ZCs placed in office by a direct vote By SysOps? 
By NCs? Were any process stipulations offered? Were timetables stated? Were 
candidates solicited? Was campaigning allowed or required? Were vote results 
announced? To the misinformed or misaligned any yes response demonstrates 
disrespect for policy. Any yes response is a clear indication that policy was 
made up as the *C team went along. After all, the propaganda being flung about 
says that anything not explicitly written in the ZC election process policy is 
a blatant disregard for said policy. Let's not even start in on NC or RC 
elections. I'd never be done.  

The fellow who filed the complaint against me -- itself technically in 
violation of the policy folks love to quote but rarely read -- may be in 
FidoNet today because I overturned excommunications by 2 *C-dictators who 
didn't like what he was saying in public. Excommunication as an unchecked 
Coordinator weapon is a dangerous thing. Making hasty decisions and then 
rationalizing them behind creative policy quotes is a deplorable act. I 
refused to allow *Cs to make up new policies to justify their actions. That 
attitude has not changed. Those who make up policy or over-interpret it to 
justify their actions get no respect or sympathy from me.  

Amplifying slightly so I can be quoted lated... Elected coordinators must 
never be removed except by those who voted them into office. That means all 
positions. To do otherwise violates the democratic principles I support for 
FidoNet.  

Now let's look at some facts rather than propaganda.

Let's examine the policy based reasoning I used to establish the election 
stipulation and how I later tried and failed to change it. Things I wasn't 
going to bring up here until it appears that my character has been questioned 
in regard to my qualifications to honor policy and hold a *C position.  

I might say in private that I think policy sucks but I will not go out in 
public setting it on fire. I believe that any coordinator who willfully 
violates or disregards policy deserves the worst we can dish out. Such 
coordinators cannot be trusted to sit as judge over policy complaints against 
others. 

As I prepared for the interim [to complete my one year term] replacement I 
first asked the RCs how the blessed event should be handled. They chose 
election. And so the games began.  

After two previous Z1C election experiences I felt we needed a procedure for 
the interim replacement process. I looked to policy for guidance. There was 
none in the ZC selection procedure. It is weak and incomplete. Any of us who 
has read the section knows that. We know it offers no indication of how 
candidates are selected and how the RCs are polled for their votes. It makes 
no mention of whether the process should be closed or open to all. It requires 
that we make up the rules as we go. Sometimes those made up rules aren't the 
most popular.  

So I looked beyond that section. The only other policy section covering 
elections is the IC selection. That one says the IC is selected from his 
peers. The ZCC already ruled that it means the IC must be a ZC. So lacking any 
verbage in the ZC selection section, knowing that this was an interim event to 
complete the remaining 6 months of my one year term, and not wanting the 
process to take 6 months, I extrapolated the stipulation from the IC procedure 
and clearly indicated to the RCs that this stipulation would not be carried 
into the formal ZC election in May. It seemed reasonable enough. After all, we 
were holding an election. Democracy prevailed within the guidelines offered in 
policy.  

Well, a few days later exactly one RC challenged the stipulation. We debated 
for a message or 2 and I started thinking about the situation. I looked up and 
realized that with 4 RCs of 10 left over from the appointment years and only 5 
elected RCs in place my stipulation, no matter how I rationalized it, was a 
bad one. So I went to the RCs. I was less than polite with my suggestion that 
some of them should follow my lead and make room for new blood. No takers. I 
also indicated that I didn't have any problem with non-RCs being on the ballot 
and they could solicit from all of Z1 if they felt it appropriate. Only that 
one RC spoke. Non-RCs continued to be rejected by Rc concensus. My "mistake" 
at that point was giving the RCs control of the rules. It seemed democratic do 
do that. They were offered a choice. I added to my public demise I told them 
my job as ZC was to take the heat for the decision. I thought it would be the 
usual flamers. I certainly never anticipated that my taking resonsibility for 
the concensus of the RCs would be used to judge me here in ZCC.  

I can take alot of flames. We all have to do that as public figures. But I 
believe I deserve the courtesy of being permitted to state my case before 
being declared incompetent by a fellow ZC.  

Ron, I thought you of all people must know the emotion a person can feel when 
another states something about him that's not true. I thought you above all 
others must know how important it is to hear the truth before repeating 
stories. 



This evening I spoke at length with Tom Jennings about the situation and how 
his last 2 editorials may have fueled the fires and pointed fingers of blame 
at me. Tom and I have had several "you're too quotable" conversations over the 
years. It applies to all high profile folks in FidoNet.  

His complaints are against the process created by the policy, not at the *Cs 
or people. We're at fault only because we are here today and policy has not 
changed in spite of many campaign promises by current *Cs. 

Tom wants policy changed. He thinks parts of policy itself are a farce. But he 
respects the process enough to want to change it rather than simply declare it 
void and make up rules as he goes along. I dare say that describes you and me 
and the rest of this group too. 

Tom and I agree that policy needs to change. We've "violated" it too often by 
trying to be democratic in our own ways. We've proven that policy cannot 
easily be rewritten and replaced. So we need to go to an incremental approach. 
First things first. We need to change the process by which changes are offered 
and ratified. Then we can attack one section at a time. It's less dramatic 
than a worldpol. And it'll take longer. But we'll see results rather than 
lobbying and battle. 

I'll shut up now. Your turn. <wink> 

