Text 22256, 162 rader
Skriven 2011-09-10 12:52:01 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
  Kommentar till text 22254 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: The isolation
=====================
Hi Janis,

On Sat 2011-Sep-10 00:13, Janis Kracht (1:261/38) wrote to Richard Webb:

<snip>

> YEp, understood.  Btw, am working on something, won't be to
> Gary by this deadline, but hopefully next week.  Bet you saw my netmail on
> that.

JK> Yep, I saw your netmail to me.. can't know when it was though (the
JK> material you were requesting).. sorry :(

See another netmail comin' at ya later.  It's turning into a multiple parts
thing again, so Gary should have part 1 in
his inbound already, or very soon as it's in the routing
chain if not at his system already.
I can probably reconstruct the spirit of what was said to me in that other echo
for part two, but one's own words
properly attributed even pack more punch.

>  I nuked my msg base in its entirety
> last weekend to troubleshoot a problem, then found the
> problem was elsewhere.  Ain't it always the way?

JK> Oh man, what a drag.. well if you want, I can pull out qwk of the
JK> msg. base you need.. it's probably in there.. will that help?  BBBS
JK> doesn't do %resend or whatever the areafix command is, sadly enough.
JK> Mark could probably do that as well if he's around this week (I know
JK> he travels a bit with work). 

YEah might, or I could ask Mark's areafix to do a rescan of
that whole base, which I might do with a couple of echoes
that I take care of anyway.  IT's a thought but was hoping
to isolate that one itself as there's not that much traffic
in the echo in question of interest for archival, and it's
not something available to users.  Those I might ask Mark's
fastecho to rescan for me are those available to users
though, and though they're few and far between that's who
they're for <g>.

JK> [...]

<big snip of discussion of routing, we're both in agreement
there anyway it seems>
>>> Imho this is something the zcc needs to address, but I've
>>> said that all along iirc.

<snip>
>> The ZCC really can have no place in this since they cannot be made
>> to decide anything relative as to who has to carry what on their
>> systems.

> Of course not, but, as FIdonews is the official organ of
> FIdonet, imho the zcc could be a little bit of a squeaky
> wheel on what the problem is with routed nm consistently
> reaching the editor, and could ask the editor that if he's
> going to moderate the FIdonews echo to clean house a bit so
> as to better serve FIdonet, or mandate that even though he
> keeps the newsletter position if he won't do that with the
> echo which represents the FIdonews then the moderatorship
> should be elsewhere.  That imho the zcc could do, without
>mandating who is required to carry what, or to feed whoever. Imho the zcc has
> direct interest in protecting the good
> name of FIdonet, and seeing to it that those who represent
> it, such as the FIdonews editor conduct him/herself in a
> manner fitting somebody with that position.  That is
> directly within the purview of the zcc's authority.  YEs, I
> know, FIdonet is a grand experiment in constructive anarchy, but any
> organization's leaders have a responsibility to see
> that what is done in the organization's name properly
> represents said organization.  The zcc has a vested interest in seeing to it
> that the FIdonews is accessible to all who
> wish to read it, and contribute to it, especially via routed FIdonet traffic.

> <soap box mode off>

JK> Hehe..Richard, I understand what you're saying.. but without a means
JK> to make a statement worth anything, except as a fellow sysop, the
JK> words from various or maybe even all ZCs can carry no weight.  I
JK> liked ZC3's statement to Ward given Ward's query of ZC's 3, 4 and 5,
JK> that I mentioned earlier.

JK> He called the NAB action lame.. but also said

I note Ward quoted that.  hE carboned me on a msg to Joe D
which he asked JOe D to post here.  HE noted the first part.

>However it is not undeserved.  If Fidonews is so important (I don't much see
>the point myself), it should not have been used as a lowbrow general chat/flam
> war echo.
JK> ====clip===

That lowbrow general war echo was unbecoming to FIdonet, as
I've said, if you want a lowbrow general war echo change the friggin tag!  IT
should have no association or implied
association with FIdonet, or FIdonet officially.

JK> And the best comment, I thought <g>

Agreed.  YEs I know, the zc has no actual club it can wield, but, even within
anarchies folks can do something.  YEs
google is not dejanews and considered by many of us usenet
denizens to be a poor usenet citizen due to the incessant
spam from Chinese knock off product merchants, etc.  But,
usenet systems will in many cases band together to cut the
feed of a problem nntp server.  Those of us in the audio
groups can tell you that we haven't seen the buzzardnews
forgers for a good period of time now, almost a year.
Buzzardnews hosted a couple of really nasty characters, and
enough abuse reports were generated that even a couple of
folks who posted from buzzardnews had to go elsewhere who
wern't themselves problem users.  Still, the zcc actually
has no teeth, no club.  IN many ways that's a good thing.


>Frankly I think all you cranky old geezers need to have your meds checked.
JK> ===clip==
Maybe, but how 'bout change the friggin echo tag if you want it to continue? 
Maybe FIdonet has an overabundance of war
echoes and what we need is some places where the user who
doesn't give a rat's rear end about old history and old
fights can participate without having his head handed to
him.    As for me, I go for a bit more civility than that,
and since my return to FIdonet even I've had myself
admonished by a mod for skirting the edges of civility, and
rightly so in that instance.  In that instance the mod knew
that reminding me what was expected would have the desired
effect, no further action needed. That the zcc can do, it
can make a statement jointly saying to folks what it expects to see, and not
see officially representing itself as Fido
anything.  Then it's up to individual zc's, their colleagues who administer
zonewide and regional backbones, etc. to give teeth to statements made.



JK> As ZCs we can't really "do" anything but make sure our segments are
JK> correct (your point about routing would be ZC2's responsibility) and
JK> that's about it. 

YEp, but see above.  The zcc can jointly make a statement of its position.  In
many cases that should be enough.

JK> Hope this makes some sense at least.

IT does, and it's the catch 22 we were left with in the
period of time when IFna died and policy 4.07 was formulated.

HOping I'm making sense as well with first cup of coffee.
Lady's hospitalized again so it's crazy around here.  Have
been fighting her kitchen last two days, she loves to cook,
but she's not real big on the cleanup operation except the
big mess right now, so I've been dismantling the range,
cleaning burner drip pans and the like.  3 mile trip on foot on tap later today
to go to the store for cleaning supplies
as I've depleted those that are for the heavy duty stuff
<g>.

Regards,
           Richard
---
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)