Text 1254, 174 rader
Skriven 2009-11-14 01:56:33 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
   Kommentar till text 1239 av Lee Lofaso (3:800/432.0)
Ärende: FidoNews 26:45 [01/0
============================
>LL>The recent "election" held by commissar Michiel is reminescent of
>LL>Soviet times.  Political appointees all.  There can be no appeal,
>LL>except perhaps to the commissar himself, assuming he allows it.

ML>you are aware that the current election rules were in place
ML>some 5 or 6 years (IIRC) /BEFORE/ the current administrator
ML>was even politically nominated for a seat on the FTSC by
ML>the one who is trying their damnedest to stir up trouble,
ML>are you not??

 LL> The "rules" as originally put in place was for one Chief Dog to
 LL> appoint six Top Dogs, with each Top Dog appointing their own
 LL> Underlings, who in turn paid homage to the Top Dog who appointed
 LL> them, while also appointing Underlings below themselves, who in
 LL> turn paid homage to their Overlords.  Since then, the six Top Dogs
 LL> got together, had a pow wow, and got rid of the Chief, as well as
 LL> one of their own, leaving only five Top Dogs and no Chief.

yes and no... you have the very beginning wrong...

 LL> As a result, there is not one fido, but five separate fidos, each
 LL> fido headed by a Top Dog, with hand-picked Underlings, who in turn
 LL> have their own hand-picked Underlings.  Each Top Dog is an entity
 LL> unto himself/herself, and can do as he/she pleases. 

to a point, yes... but not totally and never has been...

 LL> A Top Dog can fire any Underling, or all Underlings, with or 
 LL> without reason.

yup... the same as any boss can fire any of those working for them... so what??

 LL> Each Underling can fire any (or all) Underlings below him/her, with
 LL> or without reason.

again, yup... the same as above... so what?

 LL> Although it may be technically possible for a group of Underlings 
 LL> to fire a Top Dog (and name a replacement), the reality is such a 
 LL> thing will never happen. After all, no Underling will bite the 
 LL> hand that feeds them.

then you have not seen fidonet's history and/or do not fully understand it...
as far as the IC goes, the underlings DID fire their boss (bite the hand that
feeds them) in a manner of speaking... however, they also chose to form a group
of themselves to handle their activities in the same way that there are RC and
NC level groups...

 LL> What does this all mean?  The FTSC elections are meaningless.
 LL> Totally meaningless.  Zone Coordinators (Top Dogs) do not listen to
 LL> anything put forward by the FTSC.  The only standard that exists is
 LL> whatever standard(s) put forth by each Top Dog.

wrong... the FTSC documents the existing standards... nothing is in place
saying that others cannot create new standards... indeed, how do you think that
EMSI came about? it was documented, at some point, by it's creator(s) and then
the FTSC documented it later on after it was in widespread use... what is wrong
with that??

 LL> So why have FTSC "elections"?

to bring new members into the documentation group or to retain old members in
the group...

 LL> What is the point?

the point is to maintain the documentation body of fidonet and fidonet
technology networks...

 LL> Those who seek election can nominate themselves, and vote for 
 LL> themselves, there being no standard whatsoever aside from being an 
 LL> RC or REC. Competence is not an issue, the only real issue being
 LL> if an RC or REC has a pulse.

so what? the whole thing is to maintain a body of folk who can document the
technical aspects of widespread protocols in use in fidonet that are used to
exchange mail between systems... what are you missing??

 LL> It is all an exercise in futility.  Especially given the fact that
 LL> each Top Dog has the right to fire any/all Underlings.

the "top dog" as you put it has nothing to do with those nominated or elected
to the documenting body... the FTSC stands free and clear of the *C hierarchy
no matter if any members do wear a *C hat of some sort...

 LL> What is the standard?  Please the Top Dog.  Kiss his/her butt. 

no... in fact, there have been times in the past where the "top dog" as you put
it, has been told to pound salt and stuff it up their arse... however, those
times are not documented for public consumption... just know that they have
happened and on more tha one occasion... even FTSC members have been told the
same and treated as such... and yes, FTSC administrators have also been
straightened out when they overstepped their bounds... your point is??

 LL> As can plainly be seen, these are political appointments. 
 LL> Political appointees being able to appoint themselves to a position
 LL> requiring no knowledge, experience or expertise.  But no matter. 
 LL> Top Dog does not care.  After all, Top Dog sets the standard.  Not
 LL> anybody else. 

you are very wrong in this and it would appear that you need to revisit your
FTN history classes... at the least, you need to revisit the fidonet history
documents and the fidonews archives...

>LL>The poor commissar cannot even count.  If you bother to tally the
>LL>votes yourself, it will be obvious.  Some votes were counted,
>LL>others not.  So who is to say who was elected, and who was not?
>LL>Only the commissar himself can tell you for sure.  After all, it is
>LL>his count (and only his count) that counts.

ML>you can provide proof of this? are you sure you are looking
ML>at the proper vote cards that were submitted??

 LL> Sure.  Just review the messages posted in the FTSC_Public echo. 

as a FTSC member, i have done so... i'm asking you to provide the proof that
you are speaking of... evidently you are aware of something that all the other
members are not... please point it out directly without any bullshit games,
thank you very much...

>LL>I say let the Russian prostitutes vote.
>LL>And let them count the votes, too.
>LL>As well as to hear all appeals.

>LL>As such, I nominate you as fido pimp.
>LL>(International Coordinator in fido-speak)

ML>no thanks... we've already been down that road and ward
ML>attempted then to try to thwart the process and be placed
ML>as IC for Life :rolleyes:

 LL> As it stands right now, the IC position is vacant.
 LL> As such, I nominate myself for IC.  Said nomination
 LL> need not be seconded.

you cannot nominate yourself for that IC position as there is no such procedure
availabel by which you might have a chance to do such... besides, you do not
fit the requirements for the IC position... not even for RC or even NC, either
;)

 LL> I now call for nominations to be closed.
 LL> That does require a second.
 LL> I take it you second the motion?
 LL> Thanks.

not at all...

 LL> I now call for a vote by acclamation.
 LL> All in favor say "Aye!"
 LL> I vote "Aye!"
 LL> The vote is unanimous.
 LL> The "Ayes" have it.

you cannot call this "vote" since there is no "second" by your rules, posted
above ;)

 LL> As your new International Coordinator, I must set forth the rules -

 LL> There are no rules.

 LL> As such, I rule by decree.

like ward was told so many years back, stuff it and while you're at it, pound
this salt pile to a find powder and use it for lubrication :)

 LL> Now, if only my loyal subjects would listen...and obey.

 LL> Don't you love it?  Anarchy rules!  Just as Tom Jennings wanted! 

tom's idea was a whole lot different than that which you espouse ;)

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)