Text 28730, 139 rader
Skriven 2012-05-17 09:08:22 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 28719 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
Ärende: Janis defintions...
===========================
17 May 12 02:31, Richard Webb wrote to Roy Witt:

 Roy>> Since there is a Fidonews Editor listed in the nodelist as 1:1/1
 Roy>> (per policy), she is acting in accordance with it. If there was a
 Roy>> 2:2/2 Fnews Editor called for in policy, your arguement might stand
 Roy>> a chance.

 RW> Maybe so, p4 still has teh 1:1/1 language.

Yeup.

 Roy>> You can thank Ward for that fuck up, since he's the person at fault
 Roy>> for not allowing policy to be changed under his watch as IC.

 RW> There's plenty can be laid on WArd I'm sure, but he wasn't
 RW> alone.

He was the killer, for sure.

 RW> Frank Vest started lobbying hard for that change when he was snooze
 RW> editor.  In fact, Tom Jennings suggested that the sentence dealing
 RW> with 1:1/1 be purged or reworked to lose references to 1:1/1 way back
 RW> in the day,

Vest could lobby all day long, but until policy was/is actually changed,
it remains a viable nodelist address for a Fidonews Editor.

 RW> because brain dead software that didn't know how to otherwise route
 RW> mail was sending it to the apparent zonegate for z1 from z1 ,go

A problem for the zonegates to work out, for sure. But until policy is
changed, oh hum...yawn.

 RW> figure.  Tom begged the *c's to issue him another address
 RW> and consign 1:1/1 to the graveyard, which was how FIdonews
 RW> became for a long time 1:1/23.

I recall that one. I was not a node yet.

 RW> International coordinators from way back, can't recall his name in
 RW> z3, through Bob Satti were aware of it.  I can't reference the issue
 RW> where TJ actually mentioned the reference in 1:1/1 in policy, but
 RW> in several issues he griped about the problems with address 1:1/1.

It seems that he griped a lot about many things, including P4 when it
finally appeared to become Fidonet law. Thing is, he was ignored and
policy still stands today. And, just like today, many things in it were
ignored during that time as well as now.

 RW> <snip>

 MvdV>> She could have vetoed the two RCs decision to block distribution
 MvdV>> of the fidonews file echo.

 Roy>> A ZC has no obligation or duty in regulating Echomail or Files in
 Roy>> Fidonet.

 RW> No, file distribution and echomail are not within the
 RW> purview of the *c structure.

That should be a 'yes' - then.

 RW> But, IN the section on regional coordinators it does stipulate
 RW> that an rc is supposed to facilitate the distribution and
 RW> availability of fidonews.

And, for all intents as purposes, they are available on Janis' system ...
don't know about the other two, but as RCs, they probably have them
available as well. But, as I was told many years ago by a former RC10, 'if
you want those files, you'll have to get them from your NC, since it is
her job to handle them, not mine' (his).

 RW> Then, we have under 6.1:

 RW> 6.1  General

 RW> A Zone Coordinator for FidoNet has the primary task of maintaining
 RW> the nodelist for the Zone, sharing it with the other Zone
 RW> Coordinators, and ensuring the distribution of the master nodelist
 RW> (or difference file) to the Regions in the Zone.  The Zone
 RW> Coordinator is also responsible for coordinat- ing the distribution
 RW> of Network Policy documents and FidoNews to the Regional Coordinators
 RW> in the zone.

Which the ZC1 does, btw...

 Roy>> As sysops comprising the NAB (140/1, 261/38 and 123/500 - a
 Roy>> non-Fidonet sanctioned body/entity), they are under no obligation
 Roy>> to distribute anything they don't agree to distribute as grunt
 Roy>> sysops, per policy.

 RW> Then there's that.  Which is why this one is going to fester
 RW> evermore.

That was a ruling handed down by Satti when people began to bitch about
Souvestre's distribution system policy (Bodger was ZEC then).

Basically, 'since echomail is not covered by Fidonet policy, the
distribution systems are acting on their own as individual sysops.'

 RW> Were I having to judge though I'd say that the distribution
 RW> of the echo was one thing, the distribution of the publication
 RW> another.  When you take your backbone star hat off and put your *c
 RW> hat on that puts a different spin on things when it comes to the
 RW> FIdonews publication as a stand alone thing.

Neither of which makes it mandatory to distribute any files, not agreed to
distribute via an echomail or filegate backbone.

When wearing your distribution system hat, you're under no obligation to
distribute that which you don't wish to distribute.

Changing hats to your *C position means that you are only obligated to
provide those files mandated by policy, but you're not obligated to
distinguish between Fidonews publications - EXCEPT that which is covered
by policy, aka 1:1/1.

Had Felten the forsight at the beginning of his tenure, he would have
grabbed that nodelisting to ensure that his publication is THE official
Fidonews that must be distributed.

 RW> But then we can all sit here in echomail and p4 lawyer this
 RW> thing to death.  This is, at this point a matter for the zcc to
 RW> decide. SO, to each one of them, "your mission, Mister Phelps, should
 RW> you choose to accept it ... "  "this tape will self destruct in 30
 RW> seconds."

I suspect that the ZCC will follow policy on that one.


                R\%/itt



... besides, IMNSHO, Ward Dossche should resign as ZC2 and surrender his
... net node-number to the ZCC !            - Cato the Elder -

--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: Roiz Flying \A/ Service * South Texas * USA * (1:387/22)