Text 18795, 117 rader
Skriven 2014-10-04 06:13:22 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
  Kommentar till text 18794 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: Re: Echomail / P4
=========================
Janis,
 
JK> I might not go that far.  I would want to let policy speak for itself as
JK> far as echomail is concerned when we are talking about situations not
JK> involving "sysop content" or "user content".
 
There is no "sysop-content" versus "user-content". There is only "content" as
the sysop is responsible for whatever traffic he/she allows users to enter via
his/her node.
 
Also, Policy has no voice except the one we give it at present as I assume all
the logs with the discussions from yonder days are lost.
 
JK> Forward thinking writers perhaps, but we all know the history of EP1.
 
It may have been another echomail policy, but the onlyone that I know of is
EP1. The way it was included in P4 is very formal though, too formal for it not
to have been carefully considered. (my opinion)
 
JK> It
JK> _never_ got past draft status (I have a copy of the original here as I'm
JK> sure many others do), and never came up to the body (then) of RCs or EC*
JK> who could have elected to accept it.
 
It was in Z2, with all its weaknesses. It has been since ... at least 1994 that
I know of in the days when *ECs were elected. It happened over and over again
per those rules. Also appointments of moderators together with their do's and
dont's because there was no other document to empower them.
 
JK> Yes, you can pick out that one
JK> sentence and claim that echomail "is" recognized, however that ignores
JK> the second phrase of that complex sentence:
 
For a native speaker that should not be a problem. It wasn't to me even.
 
It's not that one sentence, I highlighted several sections where echomail is
specifically listed in the "do's and and dont's department" of Policy. Hence
Policy governs the technical part of echomail. That's what you're also saying,
right? No?
 
JK> It is the _structure_ (the method) to remedy the situation that is
JK> recognized. Not the draft of ep1.  Forgive my annoted quotes below.  I'm
JK> sure you've considered all this before.
 
That is an interpretation again, Janis, to get from under the heavy burden of
the words which is unavoidable. You can read, I can read, even the mob can read
... 
 
JK> {We've set out the methods of acceptence the ECs or RCs must follow in
JK> order to deal with an echomail policy.  Do we have such a document at
JK> this point? No.}
 
That particular section is so clear, there must have been something on the
table. If it wasn't EP1, then it was something else.
 
JK> {it's not merged, because it wasn't accepted via the structure described
JK> above}
 
It was accepted by the Z2 brethren. I even think Z3, Z4, Z5 and Z6 were
following it.
 
JK> > P4.7  Jun.09 1989
JK> > EP1   Feb.01 1989
 
JK> No, the date of the original is dated differently for all that matters:
 
JK> ZONE ONE BACKBONE ECHOMAIL POLICY 2.0
 
WOOOOOOOO........
 
That is a totally different ball of wax. That's the title of a different
document.
 
And do I see there "2.0" ?
 
Then there must have been a "1.0", most likely adding credence my point.
 
JK> Quite a bit later, not 1989.  Perhaps the date you are showing above is
JK> the date the file was received by someone down the line?  This document
JK> above has it's date stamped within the document with no question as to
JK> it's date.
 
JK> The date you show is more than questionable.
 
Those are the dates in the headers of both documents on file at the ZC2's
system. Has been there for ... tataaaaaaa ... 20 years today.
 
This is what I have in the document, the date is also stamped inside it:
 
*****************************************************************************
                   GENERAL ECHOMAIL POLICY 1
                        February 1, 1989
 
 
 
PROLOGUE
 
This document  sets forth  policy governing  Echomail conferences
and their distribution.
 
This Policy applies to Zone One Backbone Echomail conferences and
to any other conferences for which the Moderator desires it to be
applicable.
*****************************************************************************
 
Other than becoming ZC/2 exactly 20 years ago to the day, I had been ZEC/2 for
2 or 3 years prior to that and that function is explicitly defined in EP1.
 
Further, during the summer of 1990 we had the Eurocon IV sysop conference in
Antwerp (Belgium) and EP1 made the agenda there too.
 
Enjoy the day.
 
 \%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
 * Origin: Many Glacier / Protect - Preserve - Conserve (2:292/854)