Text 3797, 79 rader
Skriven 2009-11-17 15:41:19 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Some thoughts after the election...
===========================================
Hello All,

Now that the election is over and I have shelved the hat of election
coordinator, I can say a few things that I could not say earlier.

For starters: I think Ward had a point. Of course calling off an election
because it does not go as one would have hoped is a no no. One does not change
the rules in the middle of the game. But he did have a point in that there was
something wrong when RCs and RECs entered the arena as candidates instead of
nominators and voters. The rules do not explicitly forbid it, but I
nevertheless think this is not what whoever made the rules had in mind. I think
they never meant that RCs and RECs should be FTSC members.

Why? Just look at the result. We now have three FTSC members that are in the
position that they can vote in the next election. They can vote for themselves
and against some others. The other 14 FTSC members can not. Would anyone in his
right mind knowingly and willingly create such an unequality?

OF COURSE NOT!

In a fair and just election all candidates should be treated as equal. So
either all candidates should be allowed to (self)nominate or none should.
Either all candidates should be allowed to vote (for themselves) or none
should. The present rules however say different. There must be something wrong
with the rules.

I can only assume that those who made the rules never considered the situation
we have now. Maybe they were asleep at the wheel. Maybe they thought it goes
without saying that that FTSC and the *C never overlap. Maybe they thought the
"not too many hats" directive would cover it.

Speaking of which... It would seem that some - mostly among the native English
speakers and the derivations - are of opinion that the "may hats" issue is not
as important as it once was. It may be a cultural difference. On the eastern
side of the Atlantic we are very sensitive on matters of potential conflict of
interest. Not even do we go out of our way to avoid potential conflicts of
interest, we also feel that even the mere appearance of a potential conflict of
interest is to be avoided.

I say it is as important as ever to uphold to "not may hats" directive and even
more so because the temptation to find excuses to circumvent it is greater than
when Fidonet was big. "We need everyone that we can get" is often heard. Also
often heard is "there is no conflict". To both I say: not so in the case of the
FTSC.

The FTSC and the ZCC have been on opposite sides of a fence on several
occasions in the past. There is no reason to assume it will never happen again.
The FTSC does not create, let alone enforce standards. She documents them, but
not just that. The FTSC also gives guidance and advice on technical matters.
The ZCs and to a lesser extent the RCs actually have the power to set
standards. And hey have the power to enforce them: through the nodelist. An
example is the 000-00-00 listing for IP only nodes. That was a creation of the
RCs and ZCs, the FTSC had no part in it and would not have had part in such a
technical monstruousity had she been asked.

Also there is no shortage of volunteers for the FTSC. We are well above the
required minimum, there is no *need* for RCs or ZC to become FTSC members. That
may be different in the future, but i/when that happens, maybe we have no more
need for an FTSC at all. Right now there is no shortage. So why are we in this
hornet's nest? Why do RCs and ZCs *want* to be in the FTSC? Is the job of RC
and/or ZC so boring that they need something else along with it? If so why
can't or won't they pass on the RC or ZC hat to someone else? I don't
understand why the "not too many hats" directive is no longer considered
important.

Also: how did the RECs come in? Not all regions have a REC and there is no
consensus of what a REC actually is. Echopol 1 defines RECs, lists their duties
and sets rules for their appointment, but EP1 is only adopted in some parts of
FidoNet. Where EP1 is not adopted, RECs do not officially exist. So why do RECs
nominate and vote?

And last but not least: why does a one man region have the same vote as a
region with 5000 nodes?


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)