Text 20490, 49 rader
Skriven 2008-09-06 20:09:40 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
  Kommentar till text 20485 av Jeff Smith (1:14/5)
Ärende: Echotag Madness
=======================
Hi Jeff,

 DD> Do you consider the word "policy" to be synonymous with the word
 DD> "law"? I understand it as " a course of action to be pursued". No
 DD> mention is made of catching...

 JS>     I look at P4 as a set of policies and procedures to follow to maintain
 JS> Fidonet. A set of policies that to be effective need to be applied fairly
 JS> and equally to all members of this network.

And I think this is the crunch, Policy 4 sets out a POLICY not a LAW. The
interpretation of Policy (as far as complaints are concerned) is TOTALLY left
up to the *C structure. This means that any RULE that applies to any Fidonet
member is not set by Policy, it is set by the *C structure that inteprets that
from policy and the members. I dont see any other PRACTICAL way a co-operative
group of Sysops could operate, we all "belong" to Fidonet because we want to be
here, not because we bought a ticket to it...

 JS>> Do you really think
 JS>> that such a hobby would be possible to exist without collapse or
 JS>> without total anarchy unless there existed a set of policies or
 JS>> rules that provided structure to the network? Policy 4 exists for
 JS>> a reason and that reason is more than your "set of guidelines to
 JS>> be interpreted as need arrives".

No it is not, there is NOTHING binding any Sysop to Fidonet other than a simple
desire to belong to "the network", and t odo that they need to behave in an
acceptable manner. Fidonet is made up from a VOLUNTARY collection of like
minded individuals, and no laws or rules are going to make that work. To me,
this makes the Fidonet Policy document nothing more than a collection of
desires that, in general, matches with the desires of all its members. 
Collectively, it's the Fidonet members that define how Policy is to be
understood, which simply means that the *C structure HAS to listen to the grunt
sysops out there, otherwise Fidonet will collapse.

Surely you have seen changes to the approach to Fidonet life that have come
about over the years? If Policy 4 was taken in a strict form, then can you
imagine Fidonet existing today on PSTN modems, with no ISDN, no IP networking,
etc? How were the different modem types allowed then? Its this flexibity in
interpretation of Policy that allows all this to happen. 

If we contruct walls against moving forward, then Fidonet sysops will break
long before the walls will...

Cheers.............pk.


--- Maximus/2 3.01
 * Origin: === Maxie BBS.  Ak, NZ +64 9 444-0989 === (3:772/1)