Text 10120, 210 rader
Skriven 2013-08-31 00:35:59 av Ulrich Schroeter (2:244/1120)
  Kommentar till text 10101 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
Ärende: Internet access - Fidonet Policy thoughts ....
======================================================
Hi Roy,

Thursday August 29 2013 14:51, you wrote to me:

 RW> Ulrich Schroeter wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:
 US>>>> p407, 8.1 isn't a blocker as all ZC's accepts the proposal to
 US>>>> move forward with the voting mechanism

 MV>>> The last time it was tried it already failed at the first step:
 MV>>> getting a majority of the RC's to say "yes".
 US>> at the first step ?
 RW> Pretty much.

from the experiences in the past ... going the straight way
current policy describes doesn't work
Here I probably doesn't tell any news ...

So here you have to start with an alternate way ...

In project management you'll have a task, a goal, a project.
The project here, update policy
Starting writing an update at the very first step
and present the result to the RC's is a waste of time ...
You have to go one step back .. with project preparation
that includes:
 1. information and ideas collection
 2. analysis
 3. project planning, defining project steps

To get an idea how likely it becomes, to get as many RC's upto the task
to support a referendum you can prepare a questionaire for the ZC's
Michiel still gives one answer about 20 out of 35 RC's that did vote in last
FTSC membership election ... FTSC membership election count gives an indication
how many RC's are active and can be brought upto a vote ... but is FTSC
membership election comparable to a Policy Update referendum?
This is still an open question .. ok, one more step back ...
ZC's probably stays in contact with their RC's ... or in worst case, didn't
stay in contact .. Probably they've received informations from their
underlaying regions, how regions thinks about current policy ...
So therefor to prepare a questionaire is a starter to get more input
to prepare a project plan eg. how many RC's have to be awaken? what are the
fixpoints for a Policy Update ... simplify? or more to be precise?
From the experiences over the last 10 years, the times to be more detailed in
policy sections, to be stricter is less likely ... but we currently do not know
in which direction a majority will go ...
so therefor, we need more input  :)

Once, we've collected minimal informations from the zones we probably get an
idea, where potential blockers are ...

If there is a good signal for one or another direction a better project plan
can be prepared including a risk management - does it makes sense to move
forward and to enter the next level in project plan ?

If you'll receive responses from all ZC's the 2nd step - analysis - becomes
possible ... thats all out of scope of P407 8. Referenda
definitions ....


 US>> you're building your house from the roof tops ?-)

 RW> Some may have had a good plan in their approach, some not so good. I
 RW> think Michiel had a good grasp on what needed changing and the first
 RW> step is to lay the foundation that first.

what needed changing - yes, this is one topic, but counts nothing
if you cannot bring a majority behind it ...

and yes, to lay out a foundation to what is possible, what is impossible
in which direction a Policy update has to go is the first step.
Asking RC's you're still at the point that may be a potential show stopper.
Who else, if not the ZC's may give some answers here for input?


 US>> and then you probably didn't had a masterplan to move this
 US>> project to success ... ?!?  ?-)

 RW> The problems arose as more and more RCs rejected the presence of the
 RW> IC in the proceedings. Without him it was a foregone conclusion that
 RW> things may have worked out, but when he entered the picture, that was
 RW> the end of that.

you're talking about last referendum 10 years ago ?


 MV>>>  We are hovering near critical mass. Fidonet will
 MV>>> not survive another radical change.

 US>> So why did Fidonet survive so a long time ?

 RW> By ignoring the policy that wasn't supposed to be in the first place.

:D

 RW> If Tom Jennings had his way while he was still in Fidonet, there
 RW> wouldn't have been a policy that ultimately takes away the powers of a
 RW> sysop to run his own system without interference from a *C structure.
 RW> Had the *C structure been given the only task of being nodelist
 RW> clerks, there wouldn't have been a need for policy.

interesting thoughts =:)

as more and more still ignoring current policy it becomes more and more
obsolete, so we're probably on a way in such a direction ?!?
but who knows?

but this can become a goal to reach =:)

I still love the two rules:
     1) Thou shalt not excessively annoy others.
     2) Thou shalt not be too easily annoyed.
that I don't want to miss =:)
as I'm using it it in other open source projects as a reference.
Without these rules, my groundbase is destroyed in argumentation =:D

open source projects ... has shown us that the swarm theory
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swarm_intelligence
introduced back in 1989 works in practice but swarms still
follows very simple rules ......
so this means "reduction" ... but reduction down to which level?
and can we bring a majority behind this? or are we still at this level?
by ignoring current policy? 

 US>> This is todays message, that realy makes Fidonet in Tom Jennings
 US>> ideas to have a universial, decentralized communications network,
 US>> where each one may connect another without having a dictatorship
 US>> that allows one to cut down the whole net.

 RW> 8^)

 US>> Why do we block down possible alternate transport media with
 US>> restrictions written into policy, why we aren't able, to correct
 US>> these clauses, so Fidonet becomes future minded and open to
 US>> systems that makes the heart of Fidonet - decentralized
 US>> operations over well defined FTN standards that doesn't limit
 US>> communication down to one transport media only

 RW> I don't see any provisions in policy that would get in the way of
 RW> transporting Fidonet. I see more in policy pertaining to antiquated
 RW> rules that no longer apply to Fidonet. ZMH: being the first to go
 RW> under the Fidonet policy surgeon's knife.

:-D

 RW>  It can't be written out at
 RW> this point in time, but it can surely be ignored by those who have
 RW> chosen to stay in Fido using the latest in internet technology to
 RW> transport mail (echo or net) via a protocol compatible with the
 RW> internet and newly written Fido software to use it.

 US>> My vision:

 US>> One potential candidate has been named in the meanwhile: "HAM"
 US>> packet radio maybe such an addtl. transport layer Others may
 US>> follow ...

 RW> Interesting thoughts.

 US>> A subliminal anxiety of publishing content in the internet is not
 US>> that is intended by this concept. Its an open looking forward by
 US>> the question, what may happen tommorow, if one switches off
 US>> the centralized internet routers, than probably from one day to
 US>> another all internet and mostly all phone traffic (in the western
 US>> world) will be shut down.

 RW> Also an interesting view.

 US>> Today we're using POTS and by bending Policy also IP ...
 US>> to add more physical layers we have to bend Policy again.
 US>> Is this what we want? or do we want the Policy updated
 US>> to make it possible to extend the Fidonet capabilities
 US>> to switch easily the media to continue with communication ?

 RW> Why have a policy in the first place? Wouldn't it be much simpler to
 RW> work under a gentleman's agreement to transport Fidonet without the
 RW> burden of keeping in step with a policy that could possibly need
 RW> changing again tomorrow? Maybe an FTSC statement of the agreement to
 RW> which a sysop agrees to follow?

What I'm currently trying to challenge is, if its possible to write down the
above named "some simple rules" that are similar a constitution

eg. Fidonet transport isn't limited to one specific transport media. Exchange
between different transport media is to be documented in FTSC's.

From another project I did come to 3 essential topics:
Risks, Liabilities, Obligations
These 3 topics requires review and to be answered in a way, if there exists a
necessity to write it down in a few simple rules?
Is there a possibility that I can receive a complain without that I have done
something wrong? (responsibility for users in a mailbox where traffic entered
fidonet?) And what are my minimalst obligations?
eg. in case something goes wrong, to follow the 2 simple AB rules and first to
give it a try, to solve the problem alone ... ?!?

but here we're back to the point, that there are some minimum rules, that needs
to be written down somewhere .. so it can become a community agreement ... but
such a community agreement is still part of a policy framework that defines the
simple rules ...


 RW>          R\%/itt
 RW> -$- GoldED+/W32 1.1.5-31012
 RW> -$- D'Bridge 3.92
 RW>  $ Origin: Lone Star BBS San Antonio, Texas - USA - (1:387/22)

regards, uli   ;-)

---
 * Origin: AMBROSIA - Frankfurt/Main - Germany (2:244/1120)