Text 1731, 259 rader
Skriven 2004-11-11 12:33:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Kommentar till en text av Robert Couture (2088.fidonews)
Ärende: Science 1/2
===================
Hello Robert,
> > Actually, I will agree that the moderatorship should be
> > passed to the FidoNews editor.
> MvV> By which you are saying that you do not presently
> MvV> recognise the FidoNews editor as moderator.
> I did not say that.
It is implied. If you say it "should be passed to the FidoNews editor", you
imply that he does not presently have it.
Besides in another message you said that Jack Yates is the moderator.
But lets not press this, further down you retract it.
> > However, I also would hope that the echolist would
> > be used as well. (Only to satisfy the International
> > nature of the echo.) Not required, but not a bad idea.
> MvV> Why? Why must an international echo be subject to a
> MvV> Z1 tradition? If so, why should Z2 users of a Z1 echo
> MvV> be denied the protection of EP1? MvV> (as is a Z2
> MvV> tradition) Or this another one of those one way streets?
> See you are twisting my intent. I am NOT saying that the
> FidoNews echo shopuld be under nay single tradition.
Hmm, now you seem to be introducing a third catagory. First you introduced the
concept of "origin of an echo". You said echos should be run according to the
rules pertaining in the zone of origin.
Now you want "international echos" to be under multiple traditions,
> I am saying that both traditions could be respected if people
> were willing to try.
And what if these traditions conflict?
> MvV> But Jack Yates did not respect that: he listed the
> MvV> echo in his name. The echolist keeper did not respect
> MvV> that: he allowed this unaccuracy to enter the database.
> MvV> You did not respect it; you say Jack Yates is the
> MvV> rightfull moderator of this echo as he is listed as such.
> > I would hope that Jack Yates would pass that along.
If that is what he wanted, he had plenty of opportunity to do it. If he was
merely concerned about problems with the distribution if the echo was not
listed, he could have listed it in the name of "FidoNews editor". It was
suggested several times that he do so. Apparently that is not what he wants.
> > However, I believe there are circumstances that do need
> > to be answered that I do not know of.
Such as?
> MvV> Then you have not been paying attention. It was all
> MvV> in the open at the time. Also most of the answers
> MvV> were already in my message.
> I do not often read this echo. I may not have read
> anything to do with it.
If you engage in a discussion, you should at least read the messages addressed
to you.
> Until I volunteered to update the Software List, I really
> had little use for FidoNews because, unfortunately,
> the content is not worth reading a lot of the time.
It is well known fact that EVERY echo that is not moderated eventually turns
into a general chat echo. Even in MAKENL_NG the chatter is coming...
> > Did the prvious FidoNews Editor give moderatorship to Jack?
> MvV> No. (The answer to that was in my message)
> Which message?
The message I wrote to you about a week ago in respons to the message where you
said Jack Yates is the moderator of this echo.
> MvV> Frank Vest - the previous editor - handed over both
> MvV> the snooze and the echo to Björn Felten.
> And there it should have stayed.
But it didn't because a number of people did not respect the tradition.
> MvV> Björn - having been given the password by Frank -
> MvV> then attempted to update the listing and ran into
> MvV> almost the same problem as I did. The echolist keeper
> MvV> refused to process a record with "editors emeriti" as
> MvV> second moderator.
> To be honest, I don't think Thom should have done that.
But he did. I don't recall the details of the justification he gave. Keep in
mind that it was not me who invented the term "echolist mafia", it was Björn.
> Would that not be the same as a "co-moderator?" <-- Intended
> in a humourous way. <g>
The "no moderators emeriti" rule did not exist before...
> MvV> After some debate Björn decided to excert his right
> MvV> of "choice" to make no further use of the services
> MvV> of the echolist.
> That was an unfortunate decision.
Those that promote the echolist keep telling us over and over again that
moderators are totally free in their choice to use or not use the echolist.
For a moderator who resides in Z2 and who runs his echo according to EP1, the
logical choice is to not use the echolist.
Björn however was pressured to "respect the wishes of the Z1 community" and so
he reluctantly gave in and attempted to have the listing updated. I can fully
understand that when he ran into an echolist keeper playing games, that he
turned his back on it.
> I would have made the listing without the Moderator Emeritus
> as moderator, and put it in the DESC field.
IOW, you would have danced to the tune of the echolist keeper.
> I then would have argued that it is not Thom's position to decide
> if editors emeriti as second moderator should be allowed or not.
Argue until you see blue in the face. You would be told (as I was told) that it
is Thom's list and so he makes the rules.
Frankly I don't understand why the Z1 community accepts such a system. When
Ward makes a decision they are all up in arms crying "dictator". Ward is
elected and derives his powers from a policy that we all say we uphold.
The echolist keeper OTOH is not elected, makes his own rules, and is not even
part of FidoNet. There is no body of appeal, he is lord and master over his
list. What comes closer to a dictator than that?
Yet when the echolist keeper makes an arbitrary decision that affects every
echomail participant, the Z1 crowd unites in cheers.
I don't get it.
> MvV> The listing expired and Jack Yates grabbed it.
> That was unfortunate.
Yet I did not see you or anyone else who is now preaching "respect for other
zone's rules and tradiions" rise up in protest.
On the contrary. What I heard were smirking sounds to the effect of "it
wouldn't have happened had Björn updated the listing."
> MvV> And so you recognise Jack as moderator of this echo...
> Did I say that?
Yes you did.
> If so, I am going to have to retract that.
Ok.
So are you now going to ask the echolist keeper to correct the list?
> I respect Jack Yates, and will always respectfully be
> courteous to him in this echo, but I do not think he should
> have done what he did.
Well, tell him and see what happens...
> MvV> Which illustrates this so called "choice" to use or not
> MvV> use the echolist is a joke. A moderator is as free not to
> MvV> use the services of the echolist as a fish is free to
> MvV> leave the water. Not using the echolist is de facto
> MvV> giving up moderatorship in the eyes of the Z1 community.
> In an International echo, I think it fair that the
> moderator's location should be important to the rules followed.
So will you submit to the rules of EP1 for this echo? Considering that the
moderator resides in Z2 and EP1 is accepted policy in Z2.
> But I also know that most of the Z1 backbones will not
> carry any echo if it is not in the echolist.
That is what some keep telling us. And some others keep telling us otherwise.
But we never get the oportunity to put it to the test.
> Perhaps that was Jack's original intent so that the
> fidonews echo would not be dropped from the Z1 backbones?
If that was his intention he should not have listed it with himself as first
moderator. Also when he published his rules, He made it clear that preventing
it from being dropped off the backbone was not his only intention. He signed it
with "moderator". And he send a moderator message to me a few weeks ago. (In
this echo).
> Whatever happened after that falls into the typical Z1/Z2
> antagonistic behaviour that neither side seems willing to drop.
Z1 has been imposing their way of doing things on the rest of FidoNet for well
over a decade. They have been getting away for it for a variety of reasons, one
of them being sheer numbers. They were the biggest had the resources etc, etc.
So Z2 submitted. They didn't like it, but there was little choice.
But now the tide has turned. Z1 is no longer the biggest. Yet they are still
trying to run the show. This of course does not fall well with many in Z2.
This won't end without some serious concessions and toning down from the side
of Z1. They are considered the oppressor, so they will have to make the first
step.
> > However, I also belive that the FidoNews Editor's position
> > should be an elected position with a set term of office.
> MvV> How about elections for the echolist keeper?
> The logistics of that are pretty steep what with the
> various methods of contact and stuff. Not impossible,
> but difficult.
Why more difficult then electing the FidoNews editor?
> However, the FidoNews Editor and FidoNews are recognised
> entities within FidoNet whereas the Echolist is not.
Yet, the echolist keeper has far greater de facto power than the FidoNews
editor has. All the FidoNews editor can do is write articles or refuse articles
from others. The latter would simply result in the refused article be placed
elsewhere. The FidoNews editor has no real power. If Fidonews were to disappear
alltogether, nothing much would happen.
The echolist keeper OTOH.....
Well I am sure I don't have to repeat myself.
> If you want that to change, then you need to find a way to
> change it and convince the majority that it is a good idea.
That majority has long been convinced that FidoNet is better of without an
authoritative echolist. The idea seems good at first sight, but as always when
too much power is concentrated in one spot, that power is abused and the cure
becomes worse than the disease.
That is why there is no longer a centrally maintained echolist in Z2 and
whatever there is on local lists certainly isn't authoritative.
The majority is convinced. What now rests is to convince the minority.
Cheers, Michiel
--- InterMail 229kx
* Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)
|