----------------------------------------------
| Name | Node nr | Yes| No |
|----------------------|-------------|----|----|
| | | | |
| Rob Swindell | 1:103/705 | 5 | |
| James Coyle | 1:129/215 | 5 | |
| Tim Schattkowsky | 2:2/29 | 3 | |
----------------------------------------------
Ballots Received
----------------
RC25
RC33
RC18
RC19
RC12
Andrew
FTSC Election Coordinator
----------------------------------------------
| Name | Node nr | Yes| No |
|----------------------|-------------|----|----|
| | | | |
| Rob Swindell | 1:103/705 | 5 | |
| James Coyle | 1:129/215 | 5 | |
| Tim Schattkowsky | 2:2/29 | 3 | |
----------------------------------------------
I Vote for James Coyle 1:123/120, Dont if I can But Hey what the heck.
I know go look in the rules.
Sam
Helmut also voted, quite a long time ago:
"Please accept the Austrian (2:31) vote"
Helmut also voted, quite a long time ago:Helmut's message never arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC. Can you have him repost?
"Please accept the Austrian (2:31) vote"
Helmut also voted, quite a long time ago:
"Please accept the Austrian (2:31) vote"
Helmut's message never arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC. Can you have him
repost?
Sent him a Netmail.
This was his post:
==== Begin "helm" ====
= ftsc_public (2:310/31) ====================================================== Msg : 1936 of 1969 From : Helmut Renner 2:313/41 28 Feb 2022 00:35 To : Election Coordinator Subj : Vote ===========================================================================
==== @MSGID: 2:313/41 621c1972
Pleace accept the Austrian (2:31) vote
i can confirm that this post was received here on that date...
From: Helmut Renner
To: Election Coordinator
Subj: Vote
Date: 02/28/22 00:35
@MSGID: 2:313/41 621c1972
@PATH: 313/41 240/1120 301/1 229/426
Pleace accept the Austrian (2:31) vote
----------------------------------------------
| Name | Node nr | Yes| No | |----------------------|-------------|----|----|
| Rob Swindell | 1:103/705 | X | |
| James Coyle | 1:129/215 | X | |
| Tim Schattkowsky | 2:2/29 | X | |
----------------------------------------------
br
Helmut
--- FleetStreet 1.27.3.8d
* Origin: DonHelmi's Datendienst (2:313/41)
Helmut also voted, quite a long time ago:
"Please accept the Austrian (2:31) vote"
Helmut's message never arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC.
Hello Richard!
04 Mar 22 08:38, you wrote to me:
Helmut also voted, quite a long time ago:
"Please accept the Austrian (2:31) vote"
Helmut's message never arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC. Can you have him repost?
Hello Sam!
NAK. You are not listed as an RC, and therefore are not an eligible voter.
Regards,
Hello Sam!
NAK. You are not listed as an RC, and therefore are not an eligible
voter.
Regards,
Well thats not no fun we should be able to vote also.
Rules need to be changed.
Sam
Bye for now...
Sam
--- Ezycom V3.00 01FB064B
* Origin: Deep Space Gateway BBS Running EZYCOM V3.0 (1:123/120)
Well thats not no fun we should be able to vote also.
Helmut's message never arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC.
Yes it has, you're even in the seenby of the vote as it arrived here.
Which means that someone still has it sitting in their outbound for me, because it still has not been received here. I searched my entire FTSC_PUBLIC
message base. I note that last year Helmut's ballot arrived a week after the
polls had closed, indicating that somewhere in the PATH between him and me there is an issue.
Helmut's message never arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC.Yes it has, you're even in the seenby of the vote as it arrived here.
Being in the SEEN-BY doesn't prove anything. In the worst scenario, this may indicate a SEEN-BY lockout in transit due to some broken link.
Which means that someone still has it sitting in their outbound for
me, because it still has not been received here. I searched my entire FTSC_PUBLIC message base. I note that last year Helmut's ballot
arrived a week after the polls had closed, indicating that somewhere
in the PATH between him and me there is an issue.
Which means that someone still has it sitting in their outbound for
me, because it still has not been received here. I searched my entire FTSC_PUBLIC message base. I note that last year Helmut's ballot
arrived a week after the polls had closed, indicating that somewhere
in the PATH between him and me there is an issue.
Do you have relatives in the Netherlands?
The FTSC members require a level compentcy to do their work which is
why only RC's can vote as they are assumed to have a better level of compentcy to judge the canidates.
Having all of Fidonet being able to vote would just complicate the process. Your RC should have asked for opinions from the nodes in his Region just like mine did, but in the end it's his call.
Being in the SEEN-BY doesn't prove anything. In the worst scenario,Do you have relatives in the Netherlands?
this may indicate a SEEN-BY lockout in transit due to some broken
link.
Hello Ward!
06 Mar 22 20:53, you wrote to me:
Helmut's message never arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC.
Yes it has, you're even in the seenby of the vote as it arrived here.
Which means that someone still has it sitting in their outbound for me, because it still has not been received here. I searched my entire FTSC_PUBLIC message base. I note that last year Helmut's ballot
arrived a week after the polls had closed, indicating that somewhere in the PATH between him and me there is an issue.
Andrew
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: Phoenix BBS * phoenix.bnbbbs.net (1:320/219)
Which means that someone still has it sitting in their outbound
for me, because it still has not been received here. I searched
my entire FTSC_PUBLIC message base. I note that last year
Helmut's ballot arrived a week after the polls had closed,
indicating that somewhere in the PATH between him and me there is
an issue.
It did arrive here. With the following Bath and Zeenby:
ZEEN+BY: 30/0 154/10 203/0 221/1 6 240/12 1120 1512 1634 1895 8001
8002 ZEEN+BY: 240/8005 280/464 5003 5006 5555 301/1 113 303/0 313/41 320/219 ZEEN+BY: 335/364 341/66 371/0 460/58 712/848 2432/390
2448/1021 2452/250 ZEEN+BY: 3634/12 5019/40 5020/545 1042 5053/58
5058/104
BATH: 313/41 240/1120 301/1 280/5555
Not that you are in the Zeen-by. Plus that 301/1 is in the Bath...
Helmut's mail arrived here 3 times, with the following $een-by's and p@th's:
$EEN-BY: 203/0 221/1 240/12 1120 1512 1634 1895 8001 8002 8005 280/464 1203 $EEN-BY: 280/1208 2040 5003 5006 5555 301/1 303/0 313/41 335/364 371/0 $EEN-BY: 2432/390 2448/1021 2452/250 3634/12 P@TH: 313/41
240/1120 280/5003
$EEN-BY: 30/0 221/1 6 240/12 1120 1512 1634 1895 8001 8002 8005
280/464 5003 $EEN-BY: 280/5555 301/1 113 303/0 313/41 335/364 341/66
371/0 460/58 2432/390 $EEN-BY: 2448/1021 2452/250 3634/12 5020/1042 5058/104 P@TH: 313/41 240/1120 301/1
$EEN-BY: 240/12 1120 1512 1634 1895 5832 8001 8002 8005 280/464 5003
301/1 $EEN-BY: 303/0 313/41 335/364 371/0 2432/390 2448/1021 2452/250 3634/12 P@TH: 313/41 240/1120 2452/250
I don't see your node(s) in the $een-by's here... Maybe it helps to
solve the mystery. ;)
Good ${greeting_time}, Terry!
07 Mar 2022 12:36:58, you wrote to Sam Penwright:
The FTSC members require a level compentcy to do their work which is
why only RC's can vote as they are assumed to have a better level of
compentcy to judge the canidates.
Having all of Fidonet being able to vote would just complicate the
process. Your RC should have asked for opinions from the nodes in his
Region just like mine did, but in the end it's his call.
In general, the votes should have a weight based on both region size
and the sysops' opinions distribution (aggregated by RC).
For example, is one region has 100 sysops and another has 50, and they vote for 4 candidates with [-2, -1, 0, +1, +2] ballots (meaning "distrust", "not this time", "unsure", "let's see" and "full support", accordingly), the results may appear like this:
Candidate R1 R2 Total
A +0.23 +0.34 0.23*100+0.34*50 == 40
B +0.09 +0.08 0.09*100+0.08*50 == 13
C -0.17 +0.32 -0.17*100+0.32*50 == -1
D +0.11 +0.12 0.11*100+0.12*50 == 17
Obviously enough, the candidate C wouldn't pass.
--
Alexey V. Vissarionov aka Gremlin from Kremlin
gremlin.ru!gremlin; +vii-cmiii-ccxxix-lxxix-xlii
... god@universe:~ # cvs up && make world
--- /bin/vi
* Origin: ::1 (2:5020/545)
Do you have relatives in the Netherlands?
No.
I really want to drink a liter or two (or, possibly, three) of
beer with.
Looks like the FidoWeb had a failure.
Fidonet has never done this in the past and probably never will.
The present system ensures that each area (RC) gets a vote which means
bid areas can't dominate the vote, it's like the senate system in the US.
Helmut's mail arrived here 3 times, with the following $een-by's and
p@th's:
$EEN-BY: 203/0 221/1 240/12 1120 1512 1634 1895 8001 8002 8005 280/464
1203 $EEN-BY: 280/1208 2040 5003 5006 5555 301/1 303/0 313/41 335/364
371/0 $EEN-BY: 2432/390 2448/1021 2452/250 3634/12 P@TH: 313/41
240/1120 280/5003
$EEN-BY: 30/0 221/1 6 240/12 1120 1512 1634 1895 8001 8002 8005
280/464 5003 $EEN-BY: 280/5555 301/1 113 303/0 313/41 335/364 341/66
371/0 460/58 2432/390 $EEN-BY: 2448/1021 2452/250 3634/12 5020/1042
5058/104 P@TH: 313/41 240/1120 301/1
$EEN-BY: 240/12 1120 1512 1634 1895 5832 8001 8002 8005 280/464 5003
301/1 $EEN-BY: 303/0 313/41 335/364 371/0 2432/390 2448/1021 2452/250
3634/12 P@TH: 313/41 240/1120 2452/250
I don't see your node(s) in the $een-by's here... Maybe it helps to
solve the mystery. ;)
Helmut's last messages that arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC came via this PATH:
313/41 240/1120 335/364 221/6 221/1 320/219
It would seem that Ulrich's system has forwarded the message on, so that leaves Fabio Bizzi and Tommi Koivula (x2) as potential bottlenecks. I am linked to 221/1 (AKA 221/0) and have connects there as recently as today.
I suppose you have multiple connections for FTSC_PUBLIC. So you should
have received it through other links as well. Michiel is one of them. He got it from 301/1, as did I, and you weren't in the seen-by's in the
packet I received from 301/1, ...
Looks like the FidoWeb had a failure.
Maybe it was in one of the badly addressed Star-PKT files which I hear about ...
\%/@rd
--- DB4 - 20220222
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed
(2:292/854)
I suppose you have multiple connections for FTSC_PUBLIC. So you
should have received it through other links as well. Michiel is one
of them. He got it from 301/1, as did I, and you weren't in the
seen-by's in the packet I received from 301/1, ...
I'm beginning to have a knee-jerk reaction every time I see that 301/1 ... it's becoming so prominent everywhere and causing issues all over the place
that people should start seriously consider to de-link from it ... worldwide ...
Actually, it was introduced by IC-decree already a long time ago, never repealed but also never invoked. There were the times with a zone with only 1 sysop, a zone where the ZC did not understand english (that situation still exists, though it be a different zone), a zone with
hardly nodes which Carol desperately tried to salvage at the time when
Z2 had something like 7-8000 listed individual sysops.
That equality principle ensured that 50-60 sysops could grab the whole
of the nodelist in a strangle hold ...
The present system ensures that each area (RC) gets a vote which means TR>> bid areas can't dominate the vote, it's like the senate system in the
US.
Odd comparison because big areas do dominate the presidential vote ....
My 5 cents worth, I beleive it will never be invoked, probably why the
idea died at the time it was proposed. No Zone wars no problem.
Thhe US presidental vote is
completely different and a mystery to outsiders like me :)
Terry Roati wrote to Andrew Leary <=-
Looks like the FidoWeb had a failure.
On Mar 07, 2022 04:23am, Andrew Leary wrote to Ward Dossche:
Hello Ward!
06 Mar 22 20:53, you wrote to me:
Helmut's message never arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC.
Yes it has, you're even in the seenby of the vote as it arrived here.
In this case I'm saying 301/1 doesn't seem to be the cause of the problem!
In this case I'm saying 301/1 doesn't seem to be the cause of the
problem!
Well, I'm not so sure:
X-JAM-PATH2D: 313/41 240/1120 301/1 280/464 203/0 2
NAK. You are not listed as an RC, and therefore are not an eligible
voter.
Well thats not no fun we should be able to vote also.
Rules need to be changed.
X-JAM-PATH2D: 313/41 240/1120 301/1 280/464 203/0 2
There is nothing wrong with this path, and you got it. The problem is Andrew didn't get it.
X-JAM-PATH2D: 313/41 240/1120 301/1 280/464 203/0 2
There is nothing wrong with this path, and you got it. The problem is
Andrew didn't get it.
Rest assured, I'm not trying to point finger at anyone, I'm only curious. Every message I get from Andrew is the same:
X-JAM-PATH2D: 320/219 203/0 2
And almost the same from every other Fidoweb connected system, like e.g.
yours:
X-JAM-PATH2D: 280/464 203/0 2
So why does Helmut's path look like the above?
And the same for a Z1 node like Dan's:
X-JAM-PATH2D: 123/115 3634/12 240/1120 301/1 280/464 203/0 2
Why didn't I get that directly from Andrew?
Then we have the messages from Terry from down under:
X-JAM-PATH2D: 640/1321 1384 221/1 203/0 2
Yes, Tommi is often the fastest system in the Fidoweb, so no surprise that I get the message the fastest from his system. But I got it.
So, somewhere in our Fidoweb there seem to be a system that adds s-b lines without being properly connected to our Fidoweb.
Well, I guess only Andrew can properly investigate the reason that he
did not receive this (for once) important message. Maybe that
intermediate 240/1120 system is one of those rabid NAB systems, that refuse to handle the Fidoweb properly?
On 2022 Mar 06 21:06:04, you wrote to Andrew Leary:
you can voice your opinion to your RC and they can use it to decide on how they will vote...
)\/(ark
Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?
A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.
Q: What is "top posting"?
Terry Roati wrote to Andrew Leary <=-
Looks like the FidoWeb had a failure.
On Mar 07, 2022 04:23am, Andrew Leary wrote to Ward Dossche:
Hello Ward!
06 Mar 22 20:53, you wrote to me:
Helmut's message never arrived here in FTSC_PUBLIC.
Yes it has, you're even in the seenby of the vote as it arrived here.
... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
Terry Roati wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Feel better now?
On Mar 07, 2022 08:01am, Dan Clough wrote to Terry Roati:
Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?
A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.
Q: What is "top posting"?
Terry Roati wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Feel better now?
On Mar 07, 2022 08:01am, Dan Clough wrote to Terry Roati:
Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?
A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.
Q: What is "top posting"?
Feel smarter now?
Don't act like a n00b. It makes you look ... ignorant.
... Nothing's foolproof - the idiots are too ingenious.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.14-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)
Maybe that intermediate 240/1120 system is one of those rabid NAB
systems, that refuse to handle the Fidoweb properly?
you can voice your opinion to your RC and they can use it to decide
on how they will vote...
Okay Then Send me you email please. 1:123/120
I have some other stuff to discuss with you.
Thanks Mark
Terry Roati wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Definitely smarter, maybe I am ignorant, get over it.
On Mar 07, 2022 08:09pm, Dan Clough wrote to Terry Roati:
Terry Roati wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Feel better now?
On Mar 07, 2022 08:01am, Dan Clough wrote to Terry Roati:
Q: Why do so many people object to top posting?
A: Writing your reply to a message above what you are referring to
rather than below it.
Q: What is "top posting"?
Feel smarter now?
Don't act like a n00b. It makes you look ... ignorant.
On 2022 Mar 07 14:18:10, you wrote to me:
you can voice your opinion to your RC and they can use it to decide
on how they will vote...
you should already have it since i'm also your NC... netmail to any of my addresses also works, ya know ;)
Thanks Markyou're welcome...
Andre Robitaille wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I realize what I'm doing is the equivilent to when people
reply-all telling people to stop replying-all, but...
Would you please be the bigger man and stop replying to him? It's
just clogging up the echo with nonsense, and he's certanly not
going to be the one to stop replying.
I suppose you have multiple connections for FTSC_PUBLIC. So you should have received it through other links as well. Michiel is one of them.
He got it from 301/1, as did I, and you weren't in the seen-by's in
the packet I received from 301/1, so it's very likely that was the
case for Michiel also, so his system should have sent it to yours...
Maybe it's a case of a false positive dupe detection on your system?
Do you have backups of all incoming pkt files? If yes, have you
Fidonet has never done this in the past and probably never will.
Please see my answer to Bjorn: there I've explained why the voting procedure should be revised and likely changed.
... let's how many of the RC's even bother to vote in the FTSC election.
Terry,
... let's how many of the RC's even bother to vote in the FTSC election.
I cannot even remember ever having seen a single vote from Z4 ...
Of course, I am at an age where it is a right to forget ... even a perk
I would say ...
\%/@rd
--- DB4 - 20220222
* Origin: Hou het veilig, hou vol. Het komt allemaal weer goed
(2:292/854)
I cannot even remember ever having seen a single vote from Z4 ...
I cannot even remember ever having seen a single vote from Z4 ...
Duty calls, here we are.
Not one, but two even ... Andrew will be sp happy ... 8-)
----------------------------------------------
| Name | Node nr | Yes| No |
|----------------------|-------------|----|----|
| | | | |
| Rob Swindell | 1:103/705 | 9 | |
| James Coyle | 1:129/215 | 9 | |
| Tim Schattkowsky | 2:2/29 | 7 | |
----------------------------------------------
Are the abstentions not being counted toward the total number of votes?
And if not, why? Also, why are the abstentions not being listed in these updates?
RTFM ... in this case the election rules ...
"Candidates must receive more "yes" than "no" votes to be elected."
So, from your POV 'not casting a vote' is an 'abstention' ?
----------------------------------------------
| Name | Node nr | Yes| No |
|----------------------|-------------|----|----|
| | | | |
| Rob Swindell | 1:103/705 | 9 | |
| James Coyle | 1:129/215 | 9 | |
| Tim Schattkowsky | 2:2/29 | 7 | |
----------------------------------------------
I have a question, Andrew...
Are the abstentions not being counted toward the total number of
votes? And if not, why? Also, why are the abstentions not being listed
in these updates?
Are the abstentions not being counted toward the total number of
votes?
I have a question, Andrew...
Are the abstentions not being counted toward the total number of votes? And if not, why? Also, why are the abstentions not being liste in these updates?
Each ballot received and counted is listed below the results that you quoted. A vote submitted without a Yes or No for any candidate is considered an abstention on that candidate.
Are the abstentions not being counted toward the total number of votes?
One can vote for, against or abstain (ie. not vote at all) per person.
Persons with more yes than no votes get in.
Why do you want to count an abstain as a vote??
Abstain simmply means that that person neither voted yes or no. (ie. because there were people for YES and also for NO in the region of that RC)
Also, there are *zero* 'no' votes, at least in this current election.Finally you got the meaning of more yes than no ... it took you sime time, but now you habe it.
Does that mean a single 'yes' vote would mean a win?
Or the flip side; if everyone abstains on a candidate, except one 'no' vote, does that candidate automatically lose?
How does that make any more sense than discarding abstentions?
Also, there are *zero* 'no' votes, at least in this current election. Does that mean a single 'yes' vote would mean a win?Finally you got the meaning of more yes than no ... it took you sime
time, but now you habe it.
Or the flip side; if everyone abstains on a candidate, except one 'no vote, does that candidate automatically lose?
You finally really got it.
How does that make any more sense than discarding abstentions?
Yes means, the region thinks, that the candidate should be taken.
No means , the candidate is deemed unfit, and should NOT be taken.
Anstain means, the region does not have an oppinion, so it does say nothing with regards to that candidate, but says yes or no to others (maybe).
Shaun Buzza wrote to Richard Menedetter <=-
There is a reason that real-world politics count abstentions
along with yes and no votes. It has to be a majority vote; the
majority of *all* votes, including abstentions, must be either
yes or no.
Abstaining is different from not voting.
There is a reason that real-world politics count abstentions
along with yes and no votes. It has to be a majority vote; the majority of *all* votes, including abstentions, must be either
yes or no.
This is not correct, at least for elections that I'm familiar with,
in the USA. We count *ONLY* YES votes. You do not need a majority
of all votes, you simply need more YES votes than the number of YES
votes that your opponent gets. That's it. There are no NO votes, and there are millions of abstentions, which just means.... nothing.
Abstaining is different from not voting.
Do you have any idea how many times we must've had that discussion? Because I don't know either but a correct answer would be "Often".
Just wanting to make certain you don't believe you invented the hot water...
I was at least half right, I suppose. (^_^)
You mean then you were equally half-wrong ... do I get the tie-breaker?
\%/@rd
Shaun Buzza wrote to Dan Clough <=-
There is a reason that real-world politics count abstentions
along with yes and no votes. It has to be a majority vote; the majority of *all* votes, including abstentions, must be either
yes or no.
This is not correct, at least for elections that I'm familiar with,
in the USA. We count *ONLY* YES votes. You do not need a majority
of all votes, you simply need more YES votes than the number of YES
votes that your opponent gets. That's it. There are no NO votes, and there are millions of abstentions, which just means.... nothing.
Um, wouldn't a vote for your opponent automatically be a vote
against you, or a 'no'? Just sayin...
Unfortunately, the FTSC election has already stepped out of the
realm of the presidential election you're familiar with/referring
to. There are three candidates, and any combination of the three
could be voted in. This would be more akin to voting in members
of a city council, wouldn't it? And in that case, it is indeed a
majority decision, at least in the small part of the world I call
home.
Yes, the FTSC example is more like a city council thing. The point is that you don't need a majority (of all the people voting) to get in, you simply need more YES votes than NO votes. There is a difference.
Yes, the FTSC example is more like a city council thing. The point is that you don't need a majority (of all the people voting) to get in, you simply need more YES votes than NO votes. There is a difference.
Well, in effect it would be, sort of. But, that wasn't the point. I
was debating your claim that in real-world politics, "no" votes and abstentions are counted. They are not, because there *ARE* no "no" votes. When I look at my election ballot, I can choose to vote for
*ONE* candidate, which is a "yes" vote. There is no choice to pencil in for a "no" vote.
At this point, though, I am wondering why this is so.
What Shaun is describing is called an "absolute majority," where the
'yes' votes need to be one more than half of the eligible voters.
There is only a single reference that I can find in the FidoNet Policy about needing an absolute majority, and that's the Zone Coordinator election. Other than that, all voting mechanics are extremely vague.
And FWIW, that document has been in effect for thirty years and FidoNet
is still here.
Shaun Buzza wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Well, in effect it would be, sort of. But, that wasn't the point. I
was debating your claim that in real-world politics, "no" votes and abstentions are counted. They are not, because there *ARE* no "no"
votes. When I look at my election ballot, I can choose to vote for
*ONE* candidate, which is a "yes" vote. There is no choice to pencil in for a "no" vote.
Realistically, one could vote for both candidates, or otherwise
invalidate the ballot card, which would be considered a 'spoilt
vote', or essentially an abstention. I know, I'm picking nits
here, but I did find reference to specifically this while doing
my due diligence on the word 'abstention':
"In another manner, an intentionally spoilt vote could be
interpreted as an active abstention. An intentionally spoilt vote
is caused by a voter who turns to an election and invalidates the
ballot paper in some way."
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abstention]
Shaun Buzza wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Yes, the FTSC example is more like a city council thing. The point is that you don't need a majority (of all the people voting) to get in, you simply need more YES votes than NO votes. There is a difference.
This has been made clear by more than one person. At this point,
though, I am wondering why this is so. I strongly feel that it
*should* be a majority decision due to the nature of the election
in question. This is simply personal opinion.
At this point, though, I am wondering why this is so.
Because then you’ve have to chase everybody down to vote or you’d never get people elected.
For things like a zone coordinator, definitely. Regional, maybe?
Standing member, especially if there aren’t enough standing members currently, no way. It’s not worth it.
FidoNet is made up of volunteers then put it less effort the lower you
go in the hierarchy. You’ve got to take what you can get from people that are willing to put in effort, even for something like voting.
Disclaimer: The above refers to voting for candidates for an elected position. I do realize that sometimes ballots contain yes/no votes for things like referendums or propositions. There, that should save you some time... ;-)
This has been made clear by more than one person. At this point, though, I am wondering why this is so. I strongly feel that it *should* be a majority decision due to the nature of the election
in question. This is simply personal opinion.
If you disregard abstentions, it is a majority decision. More yes's
than no's means you get in. I think the voter should have to pick one
or the other, and not be allowed to abstain from any candidate(s).
I also wonder how it was decided that only RC's can vote for these candidates. Why not NC's also. Why not the peasant-class of
nodelisted sysops? I saw somewhere in this conversation recently (I think) that it was deemed that only RC's would have the requisite intelligence/knowledge to know if a particular candidate was qualified for such a job. I disagree with that assumption very strongly.
Oh well. I shall go back to my peasantly duties now.
Shaun Buzza wrote to Dan Clough <=-
There is a reason that real-world politics count abstentions
along with yes and no votes. It has to be a majority vote; the
majority of *all* votes, including abstentions, must be either
yes or no.
This is not correct, at least for elections that I'm familiar with,
in the USA. We count *ONLY* YES votes. You do not need a majority
of all votes, you simply need more YES votes than the number of YES
votes that your opponent gets. That's it. There are no NO votes, and
there are millions of abstentions, which just means.... nothing.
Um, wouldn't a vote for your opponent automatically be a vote
against you, or a 'no'? Just sayin...
Well, in effect it would be, sort of. But, that wasn't the point. I
was debating your claim that in real-world politics, "no" votes and abstentions are counted. They are not, because there *ARE* no "no" votes. When I look at my election ballot, I can choose to vote for
*ONE* candidate, which is a "yes" vote. There is no choice to pencil in for a "no" vote. It is NOT a majority vote to win an election. It is simply a matter of getting more YES votes than your opponent(s). Which is what I said there above...
Effectively, that's the current vote. The voter is *not* allowed to abstain, if any abstention is not counted toward the total.
I also wonder how it was decided that only RC's can vote for these candidates. Why not NC's also. Why not the peasant-class of"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
nodelisted sysops? I saw somewhere in this conversation recently (I
think) that it was deemed that only RC's would have the requisite intelligence/knowledge to know if a particular candidate was qualified
for such a job. I disagree with that assumption very strongly.
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I also wonder how it was decided that only RC's can vote for these candidates. Why not NC's also. Why not the peasant-class of
nodelisted sysops? I saw somewhere in this conversation recently (I think) that it was deemed that only RC's would have the requisite intelligence/knowledge to know if a particular candidate was qualified
for such a job. I disagree with that assumption very strongly.
"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
I fully concur with that statement ... I can list some RCs in 3 of
the zones which are unqualified to vote under the assumption that
only RC's would have the requisite intelligence/knowledge to vote.
That's what you meant, right?
I ha e a question, are spoilt ballots not reported in the US?
The way I see the election, there are X number of RC's in the nodelist.
Y number have sent in a vote of whatever sort. That's a simple
percentage of who had voted and who hasn't. it has nothing to do with abstentions
Then if someone votes. they have the three candidates listed and vote either yes or no for two of them. the tied one listed with no vote recorded is an abstention.
Listing the yes, no and abstentions is easy enough. it would be purely
for information as the rules are clear. only yes and no voted count.
While I won't disagree with your statement (per se) that not all RC's should be voting, I meant of course that some "regular" sysops may also have the ability to make an intelligent vote on the subject.
Does it take a change to P4 for such a change to actually happen?
(That's a serious question, I'd like to know).
Effectively, that's the current vote. The voter is *not* allowed to abstain, if any abstention is not counted toward the total.
No. Someone choosing not to vote is not an abstention. An abstention is only when someone indicates th y are refusing g to cat a vote for either party. It's easier to understand in the cont of a meeting. Of the people who are physically present,some vote and some do not. This who do not vote have abstained. Those who stayed at home are not counted as abstentions. on this case, submitting a ballot with no yes or no vote for a candidate is an abstention. Simply ignoring the process and not sending in a
ballot is NOT an abstention.
I fully concur with that statement ... I can list some RCs in 3 of the zones which are unqualified to vote under the assumption that only RC's would have the requisite intelligence/knowledge to vote.
Does it take a change to P4 for such a change to actually happen?
(That's a serious question, I'd like to know).
While I won't disagree with your statement (per se) that not all RC's should be voting, I meant of course that some "regular" sysops may als have the ability to make an intelligent vote on the subject.
While I concur that probably quite a number of sysops even are able to provide an intelligent vote on the subject, I don't think that should materialise for the simple reasons that it's not a popularity poll and this is a technical mandate only...
For the first time in many many FTSC-elections there are competent candidates, nothing but competent candidates. In the past there have
been nominations for pure political reasons, or to make certain there
was a balance between Z1 and Z2 standing members while that is totally irrelevant, or simply to upset or annoy an opponent, etc... No political shit-show this time ...
Plus, a full nodelist-wide election (in my opnion) would make this way
too top-heavy for its intended purpose....
Does it take a change to P4 for such a change to actually happen?
The FTSC itself decides upon that "intra muros". Check 'www.ftsc.org' to find the procedures ...
(That's a serious question, I'd like to know).
Has your quest for knowledge been satisfied or do you need Gandalf's number?
I fully concur with that statement ... I can list some RCs in 3 of SB>WD> the zones which are unqualified to vote under the assumption that
only RC's would have the requisite intelligence/knowledge to vote.
Of course you can, you opinionated old fart!
What surprises me is that you limited yourself to only three zones!
Please don't say "intelligence/knowledge" in the future; these words are *not* interchangeable.
I have too little knowledge of Fidonet to be a valid voter. This is why
I discussed this election with my RC, before he cast his vote.
Ward, I seriously question your motives in this election...
Please contact me via Netmail if you wish to hear my thoughts, as they
may not be relevant to this current discussion.
Of course you can, you opinionated old fart!
I can also pee straight without getting my feet wet ...
Please don't say "intelligence/knowledge" in the future; these words a *not* interchangeable.
Correct. And had you followed the thread and not just jumped on it
because you saw my name you would know that I was merely quoting someone else, hence the double quotation marks.
I have too little knowledge of Fidonet to be a valid voter. This is wh I discussed this election with my RC, before he cast his vote.
Ward, I seriously question your motives in this election...
And they are "what" my motives?
Other than having technically qualified
people participating unlike previous years (with certain exceptions) ? Remember, I do not run this election ... I'm an "interrested bystander".
Ward, I seriously question your motives in this election...
And they are "what" my motives?
I have no idea! But, as an outside observer, I can clearly see that you
are trying your level best to influence this proceeding. And that is exactly why I am wondering...
Remember, I do not run this election ... I'm an "interrested
bystander".
A little *too* interested, in my opinion...
I really think this particular discussion should take place via Netmail,
as I suggested. This is definitely straying far off the topic that I had brought up.
However, I believe you wouldn't even have your current ZC title without a full nodelist-wide election, if I've read the Part 4 document correctly.
I have no idea! But, as an outside observer, I can clearly see that yo are trying your level best to influence this proceeding. And that is exactly why I am wondering...
Wipe-off your spectacles then ...
This is the current composition of the FTSC with Deon George vacating his seat...
Name Node Term ends
--------------------------------------------------------
Andrew Leary 1:320/219 29 Mar 2023
mark lewis 1:3634/12 29 Mar 2023
Richard Menedetter 2:310/31 29 Mar 2023
Carol Shenkenberger 1:275/100 29 Mar 2023
Nick Andre 1:229/426 29 Mar 2023
Deon George 3:633/509 06 Jan 2022
Maurice Kinal 1:153/7001 29 Mar 2023
Dale Barnes 1:106/201 29 Mar 2023
7 remaining ... without the names put forward by the ZCC Nominating Committee there would be an empty election. Meaning if the ZCC doesn't move next year those 7 mandates will also expire ... that would mean the end of the FTSC according to its charter.
Yes, of course, the minumum required number can be lowered and there may be a few nominations just to fullfill that minimum requirement but I
doubt if people like Nick Andre, Andrew Leary, Dale Barnes ... can be motivated for another term of '2 years nothing' which in fact would make the complete concept of an FTSC useless.
You should not be questioning me for my motives to keep the FTSC as a functional body, instead you should be questioning all the RCs (minus Jay Harris) why they are sitting on their asses and not thinking about the continuity ...
2 weeks into the voting period of 3 weeks with the ballot closing like 7 days from now, Andrew recorded 16 votes out of 34 RCs listed. Isn't that worrysome? Some will still roll-in, but nevertheless ...
Remember, I do not run this election ... I'm an "interrested
bystander".
A little *too* interested, in my opinion...
"Daddy, what did you do during the war?"
I really think this particular discussion should take place via Netmai as I suggested. This is definitely straying far off the topic that I h brought up.
Not my monkey, not my circus. You started this. Write echomail, I will reply in echomail. Write netmail and ...
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
While I won't disagree with your statement (per se) that not all RC's should be voting, I meant of course that some "regular" sysops may also have the ability to make an intelligent vote on the subject.
While I concur that probably quite a number of sysops even are
able to provide an intelligent vote on the subject, I don't think
that should materialise for the simple reasons that it's not a
popularity poll and this is a technical mandate only...
For the first time in many many FTSC-elections there are
competent candidates, nothing but competent candidates. In the
past there have been nominations for pure political reasons, or
to make certain there was a balance between Z1 and Z2 standing
members while that is totally irrelevant, or simply to upset or
annoy an opponent, etc... No political shit-show this time ...
Plus, a full nodelist-wide election (in my opnion) would make
this way too top-heavy for its intended purpose....
Does it take a change to P4 for such a change to actually happen?
The FTSC itself decides upon that "intra muros". Check
'www.ftsc.org' to find the procedures ...
(That's a serious question, I'd like to know).
Has your quest for knowledge been satisfied or do you need
Gandalf's number?
Shaun Buzza wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Does it take a change to P4 for such a change to actually happen?
(That's a serious question, I'd like to know).
As would I. I am very concerned about the way this document is
currently being interpreted.
I feel like you would make a great clown! (o_-)
Agreed and more sense. Careful, you don't want to make that a habit.
Well thats not no fun we should be able to vote also.
You are. Well, if your RC does his job, that is...
..
Well, there's nothing very new about different interpretations of P4. Been going on for decades. Still has a LONG way to go before reaching the seniority of how the U.S. Constitution is similar. :-)
Perhaps masterful documents are that way by nature...?
Perhaps masterful documents are that way by nature...?
Huh...may be...certainly food for thought...
| Sysop: | Weed Hopper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Clearwater, FL |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 230:32:41 |
| Calls: | 55 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 50,127 |
| D/L today: |
26 files (3,281K bytes) |
| Messages: | 275,349 |