Text 28735, 135 rader
Skriven 2012-05-18 00:35:55 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
  Kommentar till text 28730 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Janis defintions...
===========================
HI Roy,

On Thu 2012-May-17 09:08, Roy Witt (1:387/22) wrote to Richard Webb:

Dashing this off rather quickly as I have to pick up a radio net at top of hour
now 36 past.
 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.
<big snip>
Roy> A problem for the zonegates to work out, for sure. But until policy
Roy> is changed, oh hum...yawn.

 RW> figure.  Tom begged the *c's to issue him another address
<snip>

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

Indeed.  And so it goes.

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

Roy> That should be a 'yes' - then.

Probably so, in fact yes.

 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.

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

YEs, and waht I do if there's an article of interest
pertinent to fIdonet in either I make sure it gets saved
even if from the echo.

 RW> Then, we have under 6.1:
<snip>

Roy> Which the ZC1 does, btw...


YEah, it's available.  NOte mark Lewis and I and our
comments on coordinator versus manager or other definitions.

 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.

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

Indeed, recall that one.  That's where I first got my pet
phrase re echomail and policy "just don't step in it ... "
etc.

Roy> Basically, 'since echomail is not covered by Fidonet policy, the
Roy> 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.

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

MIght be, depends on how you interpret it.  I can see the
merit in both sides of that argument.  Policy, and rulings
by international coordinators in the past speak with forked
tongue on the issue.  Either Fidonet fully encompasses the
distribution systems that utilize it, and therefore can make rules governing
their activity, or it doesn't and can't.

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

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

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

That makes sense too.

 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."

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

I suspect that the zcc will do just what it has done, and
let the p4 lawyers continue to beat each other up in
echomail and watch the excrement fly.  After all that's got
to be more entertaining <g>.  After all, two of them are
partisans when it comes to this whole mess, and the other
three obviously could care less.  Whatever, I'll cherry pick good content if
it's there from either and do the same
myself.  An interesting debate on many levels,  but that's
about the level at which I participate in this whole
controversy, as an exercise in mental gymnastics.  I'm just
as glad I'm not one of the other zc's because somebody might actually expect me
to help deal with all the noise.  IT's a
lot easier to just plink at targets from out here in the
boonies and laugh ya know <grin>.




Regards,
           Richard
... Love is being owned by a rottweiler!
---
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)