Text 33992, 102 rader
Skriven 2016-06-13 21:23:43 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 33988 av David Drummond (3:640/305)
Ärende: Nominations Accepted
============================
Hello David,

 LL>>>> decline nomination.  But none have declined.  As
 LL>>>> such, the Election Coordinator is in error.

 DD>>> None have accepted the nomination either.

 LL>> Nominations do not have to be seconded in order to be valid.
 LL>> But once nominated, a nomination is valid.

 DD> No shit - and if the nominated candidate does nothing he or she could end
up
 DD> on the throne?

P.T. Barnum certainly understood that.

 DD>>> This "no nomination" clause was in the EC's original rules - DD>>but I
 DD> missed it in my enthusiasm.

 LL>> I doubt anybody really cares one way or the other how a nomination
 LL>> is made.  It is just a point to keep in mind given standard rules
 LL>> of order.

 DD> The nice thing about standards is that everyone has one. Whose standard
are
 DD> you referencing above?

Michiel is basing his authority on his own authority, which is
to say none at all.  Those who choose to accept Michiel's authority
as their parliamentary authority get what they pay for - a despotic
dictatorship no different than what Z1 has.  I do take it Michiel
is limiting his own authority to one particular echo rather than
an entire zone, but the result is the same.

All legitimate parliamentary authorities are based on principles
of parliamentary law that recognize the fundamental concept that the
rights of all must be protected.

No Election Coordinator who claims his own self as sole parliamentary
authority has any legitimate right to tell others who may or may not
be nominated or be elected to office, much less write the rules as to
how everybody else is to play the game.

You asked a question - "Whose standard are you referencing above?"

In clarification of my comment ("It is just a point to keep in mind
standard rules of order") what must be remembered is that each group
creates its own rules and then decides or adopts what procedures to
use for things not covered in its rules.  That is what is meant by
parliamentary authority.  In this case, the sysops are the group,
and have no stated parliamentary authority, as there are no rules.

Two sysops claiming to be moderator, each with a set of rules,
but neither recognized by all.  Not even a clear majority.

Michiel has stepped forward, with authority from no one but himself,
claiming to be Election Coordinator, writing his own set of rules for
everybody to follow, and hope that all the sysops in the echo will
play along like sheep and accept their new leader.

No single individual should be any group's standard of order.
Such a thing would be a dictatorship.  Is that what the sysops
in the FN_SYSOP echo want?  A dictatorship where only the rule
of the dictator counts?  I don't think so.

What are the principles of parliamentary law?  That would be
too grand a question to answer in one post.  However, it can be
said that all parliamentary authority is based on sound principles
of law, such as -

* of the majority
* of the minority (esp. if greater than one/third)
* of individual members
* of absentees
* all of the above

The bottom line is that the will of the majority decides what
matters, not a single individual who claims for himself the title
of Election Coordinator.  By having a legitimate parliamentary
authority, the will of the majority can only be decided after
full and free discussion, thus ensuring the rights of all being
protected.

Each group sets its own standard.  Is Michiel van der Vlist
the best standard that sysops of the FN_SYSOP echo can set for
themselves?

 DD>>> It matters not - I shall be running my system and the echoes there
 DD>>> -on by my suggested model and will not be recognising any single
 DD>>> moderator chosen as having any authority outside his/her own system.

 LL>> That makes sense, given the philosophy of Fidonet.
 LL>> Or what it should be.

 DD> It reflects the reality of Fidonet today.

With no clear parliamentary authority what you have is anarchy.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)