= Сообщение: 6347 из 7124 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Shaun Buzza 1:229/110 12 Mar 22 19:08:58 Кому : Ward Dossche 12 Mar 22 19:08:58 Тема : Re: 2022 FTSC Standing Member Election - Votes Received FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:229/110+f2a9943f На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:292/854+0513215b = Кодировка сообщения определена как: ASCII ================================== Ответ: area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=2:292/854+103c1c5d ============================================================================== WD> DC> While I won't disagree with your statement (per se) that not all RC's WD> DC> should be voting, I meant of course that some "regular" sysops may als WD> DC> have the ability to make an intelligent vote on the subject. WD> WD> While I concur that probably quite a number of sysops even are able to WD> provide an intelligent vote on the subject, I don't think that should WD> materialise for the simple reasons that it's not a popularity poll and WD> this is a technical mandate only...
I disagree. It is not just a 'technical mandate'. If it were, why even pretend to have an election? Again, I find myself questioning your motives here.
WD> For the first time in many many FTSC-elections there are competent WD> candidates, nothing but competent candidates. In the past there have WD> been nominations for pure political reasons, or to make certain there WD> was a balance between Z1 and Z2 standing members while that is totally WD> irrelevant, or simply to upset or annoy an opponent, etc... No political WD> shit-show this time ...
I cannot speak about past elections, as I was literally not present at the time. However, this very much seems like a 'political shit-show' to me. It seems like people may be 'adjusting' the rules of this election in order to get the results they wish to see.
To be clear, I have not, nor will I ever, suggest that any of these candidates are incompetent. However, the question has been raised (and blatantly ignored) about their legitimacy. This is something that bothers me.
Technically, this isn't about politics, it's about technicalities. (o_-)
WD> Plus, a full nodelist-wide election (in my opnion) would make this way WD> too top-heavy for its intended purpose....
That is very easy to agree with, at least in this specific context.
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.
WD> DC> Does it take a change to P4 for such a change to actually happen? WD> WD> The FTSC itself decides upon that "intra muros". Check 'www.ftsc.org' to WD> find the procedures ...
WD> DC> (That's a serious question, I'd like to know). WD> WD> Has your quest for knowledge been satisfied or do you need Gandalf's WD> number?
Shoot, if you got his number, fork it over! I got plenty of Gray magic questions!
Was Part 4 written in stone? Is it immutable? Should it be updated? Dan Clough isn't the only one who asks these questions.
(Damn it, Gamgee, stop making me agree with you! (>_<) )
