Text 40645, 109 rader
Skriven 2006-10-04 09:32:12 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.0)
  Kommentar till text 40582 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: DUD-file
================
 ml> the thing is, ward... that wasn't done when she was wearing her Z1C
 ml> hat... it was done whilst wearing her "IFDC" hat... the IFDC is a
 ml> private organization that provides fidonet with a service of
 ml> distributing file echos... the IFDC has their own set of rules which
 ml> fidonet has no control over... this is the same thing as with the
 ml> various independant backbones carrying echomail...

 MB> Hate to break it to you mark, but if ifdc rules conflict with any
 MB> portion of fidonet policy then policy will always win.  

yousay that now but you weren't singing that song years back during the
backbone wars before you left fidonet for a while...

 MB> Put simply, the ifdc has no bearing on this discussion.  

bullshit...

 MB> Instead, the arguement should simply focus on whether policy was 
 MB> violated.  Just because those who happen to hold a *c position 
 MB> also receive or participate in the filegate does not eliminate 
 MB> their responsibilities as coordinators.  

right... it actually complicates them to a point...

 MB> I believe we should engage in this discussion with an open mind 
 MB> and not automatically take offense to what others have to say 
 MB> because these are important arguements and discussion.

yeah right... what makes them so much more important now than they were years
ago when the same type of stuff was done on almost a daily basis?

 MB> How does one determine where fidonet policy ends and private
 MB> organizations within fidonet begin? 

exactly... this was one of the big things that souvestre and company had to
deal with... the concensis<sp?> at that time was that it depended on what file
the area was listed in... if an area was listed in backbone.na or backbone.no,
then the area was considered to be on the backbone... if the area was listed in
pvtdist.na or pvtdist.no (or some other name), then it was _not_ considered to
be on the backbone...

 MB> Fidonews and nodediffs were distributed long before the filegate.

true and they were distributed by the *Cs starting at the top with the IC and
then flowing down the chain to the NCs... all that got broken when fidonet went
without an IC for so many years and the ZCC basically decided how to handle the
duties of the IC... FWIW: good ol'e WD was one of those ZCs at that time, too
;)  this was back in 1997-1998 when george peace stepped down from the IC
position...

back to this situation, some time back around then, was when the backbone wars
were going on... remember, we're talking about back just before and during the
time when fidonet enjoyed satellite feeds of their message and file echos... it
was this movement to allowing the private and independant backbones to carry
fidonet's traffic that lead to the widespread discovery that folk had the
freedom to link where ever they wanted and were able to make an agreement for
the linkage... this also lead to the breakdown of the *C distribution chain as
well as the routing of netmail... this is where the regional routing charts
were supposedly to come into play, too... they were supposed to give the layout
of the routing within the regions so that those making connections into the
regions would know where to drop off netmail to be forwarded on to the
destination systems... however, there were some RCs at that time that didn't
want to play fairly and do the charts... those regions had a lot of problems
with routed netmail... there was at least one region that submitted a chart
that had only one line in it... that line being the RCs address indicating that
all netmail for that region was to be dropped off at that RCs system and he
would take it from there... that lead to a huge hullabaloo about censoring and
the reading of others mail and all kinds of mess...

needless to say, due to all this, netmail routing migrated to being carried by
the backbones and the term "echomail routed netmail" was born... that, too, had
(and still has) its problems but things are seemingly a bit better now than
they were then...
  
 MB> Just because the filegate carries them does not give it 
 MB> juristiction over fidonews.

no one said that it does... i wasn't involved with the filebones back in the
day but i am aware that they, too, had their share of problems similar to what
i've described above with echomail... the same rulings that came to echomail
distribution were also applied to fileecho distribution... what file is it
listed in? filegate.na and filegate.no or fido.na and fido.no or something else
that serves to seperate its listing from the other areas??

 ml> the two situations are very different... you attempted your moves
 ml> while wearing your IC hat on those occasions where warranted...

 MB> It would be nice if the IC, whomever some say he is, was not also a
 MB> ZC.  

that's part of another very old argument that came up back during that time i
described above when george peace was the IC... there are two interpretations
of policy wrt to the IC and his ZC position... some, like WD, seem to think
that they should retain both hats contrary to what policy also states about
minimizing hats... others believe that simply having been a ZC qualifies one to
be the IC... this means that they could be a sitting ZC or a former ZC... it is
also up to the ZC if they decide to relenquish their ZC hat when they become
IC... policy only states that there should be a minimizing of hats but not that
it is mandatory... it is another subject of much debate and frothing at the
mouth...

 MB> It would make questions like these much easier to address.  In
 MB> fact, I believe we really do not need an IC anymore...

no thanks to those that created the situation, eh? ;)

)\/(ark

 * Origin:  (1:3634/12)