Text 3839, 104 rader
Skriven 2009-11-18 14:49:48 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
   Kommentar till text 3832 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Some thoughts after the election...
===========================================
Hello Michiel,

Ok, now you've sparked some attention...

> A perfect example of what I as a scientist and technician abhor: a technical
> solution for a political problem.

>A standard created by the *Cs and forced onto the network by the *C's using th
> nodelist as the weapon.

Nonesense.  It is used here -now-  waiting "for Ward", and you know that. When
and if he becomes a user of MakeNl_NG and when he agrees to discuss how we can
use it's great features in the nodelist, Zone 1 will drop INA:.  I believe you
know that as well.   INA: was created to solve a technical nodelist
problem in R18. And if you say that it could have been solved with some other
flag or method, then you still aren't listening, or no one has told you what
transpired back then.

>Putting the host name or IP address of an IP node in the system name field is
> technically sound solution. But there were some selfish sysops that did not

It wouldn't work in this particular instance in Zone 1.  Ross will correct me
if I'm wrong about that, but IIRC, that was the start of it all.

>In the end the FTSC had no choice but to document it of course. I have accepte
> it and since I am not holier than the Pope, you can see it now in my 2:2/20
> listing as well. But I do consider this an example of where the technicians

You don't have to use it, you choose to use it.  You could stick with Pvt,
Unpublished, no?

>The introduction of the INA flag is an example that illustrates why RCs and ZC
> should NOT be in the FTSC. Thank you for poiting me to it.

Sorry, I disagree.

> And you are right: it also illustrates that one need not be an FTSC member to
> introduce a new standard.

That's always been true.  Just like it's always been true that anything
experimental in the nodelist was always possible.. just to see how it would
work, and what kind of response it received.

> position is jaded because you are still pissed off that when I rearranged the
> links for the private FTSC echo you were no longer in the path and could no
> longer secretly read what went on there?

He is a sharp guy.  Get over your hangups with him as you say you have already
done.  You say in one message that you don't carry grudges against people for
long, but now tell the truth... how long has this one been bugging you about
INA:, Ross, and his LINK to my system which at the time was definitely
originally "OK" -  because he was my uplink into the Echo??? For a long while
BEFORE you became Administrator.  He disconnected when you told him to, but
that wasn't good enough.

> If that is such a good idea, why is there no limitation on the term of an RC?
> Or ZC? How long have you been RC? When will you step aside to make room for
>fresh blood? You keep harping Ward for being ZC for life, but Janis has been i
> the velvet seat for ages in my perception. When will the Z1 RC counsel tell
> here it is time for fresh blood?

I took office about at least a month AFTER Ward took office.  After that the RC
counsel here has been questioned as far as to their preferences in having an
election.  But of course you're going to tell me, Oh I knew that.

[clip]
NETMAIL message from Ward Dossche to Janis Kracht (PRIVATE) (read).
   Entered on 22nd December, 2000 at 15:33, 30 lines.

Subject: 2:292/854 NEW ZC/1
===========================

@^@AINTL 1:2320/38 2:292/854
@A@FLAGS A/S
Hello Janis,

I have just received the news that you've been elected as the new
zone-coordinator for zone-1.

Welcome aboard I would say.
[clip]


> As I see it, limitation of terms is much more needed for th *Cs than for FTSC
>members. Technicians that are around for a long time, just have their reflexes
> slow down and they become less productive. They just become old technicians,
>they do no harm. Politicians OTOH gain power and as we all know power corrupts

Speaking of which, when is yours up <vbg>  Actually Michiel, I do hope you
would continue as administrator.  I enjoy that it keeps you busy <vbg>

Now, can we let all that garbage go finally, and get back to the main point
here?  _Are_ the election rules _truly_ in need of change?  I don't think so.
Perhaps some good ideas have come out though, especially from R13C (Thank you
Michael Luko.  I know it is a given in R13, but may not be elsewhere).   That
is my opinion given what I know of the people who serve us on the committee,
and given what I know of the people who have served us in the past. Let people
do their job, and get on with it as Vince and countless others have requested.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)