Text 4197, 76 rader
Skriven 2004-12-24 13:49:26 av Thom LaCosta (1:261/1352.0)
   Kommentar till text 4170 av Roy Witt (1:10/22)
Ärende: FNS creator
===================
Roy Witt wrote in a message to Thom LaCosta:

 RW> Hello Thom.

 RW> 22 Dec 04 09:45, you wrote to Robert Couture:

 TL>> In fact, some might consider it a fitting and worthwhile exercise to
 TL>> "fight fire with fire."
 RC>> A very interesting post, Thom.  I guess that would be two wrongs do
 RC>> not make a right.  But since certain folks in Zone 2 think that two
 RC>> wrongs do make a right, I suppose there is something to be said for
 RC>> your bluntness. ;)
 RC>> Let the race begin.

 TL> I think it would be very instructive for members of the network to be
 TL> informed of whatever progress is being made to conduct an election
 TL> for moderator of FN_SYSOP.

 TL> If Fidonews is looked upon as the "publication of record" for the
 TL> network, then that publication and this echo might be an ideal place
 TL> to inform the members of the progress.

 RW> Fair enough. So far there has been an election called by Dan Ceppa.
 RW> Up to this point, it's been a bunch of whining by Felten and
 RW> company; that one rule that has been stated for this election was
 RW> that, only those who have posted within the past six months are
 RW> elegible to vote. IHisO, those who don't post there but do read
 RW> there, have been disinfranchised. 

People that do not participate in an echo, such as myself, disenfranchise
themselves.  I have no stake in the echo, no interest in it and don't feel that
it's my place to vote on the moderator of the echo since I am not an active
participant.


 RW> And, since the last election bypassed the rules of election
 RW> completely, that same sceneario is happening again, as the
 RW> precedent has been set. 

Yes, I've pointed that our several times.....by breaking the rules to forward
an agenda, the stage was set not to have any rules in force....or at the very
best to have a set of rules in force that could be broken at will.

 RW> The arguement against that premise is that 'the sysops own the
 RW> echo' and everyone in the nodelist is elegible to vote there.

One could say that...but as far as I know, the vote was never taken on that
basis for that echo.


 RW> I was contemplating asking you to act as the Election Coordinator,
 RW> you having the means to receive all modes of netmail, email,
 RW> internet online and no interest in the outcome of the election,
 RW> other than curiosity. If you agreed to that and it was acceptable
 RW> to Dan and everyone else, then the question would have been asked.

 RW> Since that that's now a 'cat out of the bag' in a public echo, what
 RW> do you say?

I suspect that with the tremendous amount of ill-will and accusations directed
at me and my ability to be a fair and neutral person, many unfounded and
specious objections might be raised. 

Realizing that the winner of the election becomes the moderator, having me as a
vote counter might be seen as a conflict, since who I might certify as the
winner becomes the listed moderator.

Knowing some of the personalities in this echo and FN_SYSOP, I'd rather not
have to put up with the accusations, lies and persoanl attacks over an echo
that I don't read.

cya,
thom
http://www.tlchost.net/echolist/ 
--- GEcho 1.20/Pro
 * Origin: Home of The Other Robot (1:261/1352)