Text 3862, 107 rader
Skriven 2009-11-20 11:16:58 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
     Kommentar till en text av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
Ärende: INA
===========
Hello Janis,

On Wednesday November 18 2009 14:49, you wrote to me:

 >> A perfect example of what I as a scientist and technician abhor: a
 >> technical solution for a political problem.

 >> A standard created by the *Cs and forced onto the network by the *C's
 >> using the nodelist as the weapon.

 JK> Nonesense.  It is used here -now-  waiting "for Ward", and you know
 JK> that. When and if he becomes a user of MakeNl_NG and when he agrees to
 JK> discuss how we can use it's great features in the nodelist, Zone 1
 JK> will drop INA:.

I think you are mixing up the issue of the all zero telephone numbers with the
issue of the INA flag.

 JK> INA: was created to solve a technical nodelist problem in R18. And if
 JK> you say that it could have been solved with some other flag or method,
 JK> then you still aren't listening, or no one has told you what
 JK> transpired back then.

I know exactly what happened. I have been informed from several insiders, one
of them being the inventor of the INA flag. It started with an obnoxious NC
submitting a segment that broke the MAKNL line length limitation.

There never was a *technical* problem that was not already solved by putting
the host name/Ip number in the system name field.

What the INA flag solved was the SOCIAL/POLITICAL problem that people did not
want to give up advertisong the name of their BBS in the nodelist.

 >> Putting the host name or IP address of an IP node in the system name
 >> field is technically sound solution. But there were some selfish
 >> sysops that did not

 JK> It wouldn't work in this particular instance in Zone 1.

Of course it would.

 JK> Ross will correct me if I'm wrong about that, but IIRC, that was the
 JK> start of it all.

I have discussed this this length with Ross and in the end he had to admit that
the INA flag solved a political problem, not a technical problem.

 >> In the end the FTSC had no choice but to document it of course. I
 >> have accepte it and since I am not holier than the Pope, you can see
 >> it now in my 2:2/20 listing as well. But I do consider this an
 >> example of where the technicians

 JK> You don't have to use it, you choose to use it.  You could stick with
 JK> Pvt, Unpublished, no?

No. Your are mixing up the INA flag and the all zero phone numbers.

 >> The introduction of the INA flag is an example that illustrates why
 >> RCs and ZC should NOT be in the FTSC. Thank you for poiting me to it.

 JK> Sorry, I disagree.

Of course you do. You are a politician. Politicians always think they should
have a say in everything. If politicians had their way they would set the value
of pi to 3.0 to make it easier for the kids at school to remember it.

 JK> He is a sharp guy.  Get over your hangups with him as you say you have
 JK> already done.  You say in one message that you don't carry grudges
 JK> against people for long, but now tell the truth... how long has this
 JK> one been bugging you about INA:

As I said, I have accepted it. I have updated my software to handle the INA
flag, and I use it in my nodelist segment when it makes sense.

But then again when someone handles me an example that illustrates how the
tecnicians and the politicians have a conflict of interest, I can't t let it
pass can i? Not when it is handled on a platter.

 JK> , Ross, and his LINK to my system which at the time was definitely
 JK> originally "OK" -  because he was my uplink into the Echo??? For a
 JK> long while BEFORE you became Administrator.  He disconnected when you
 JK> told him to, but that wasn't good enough.

It was not good enough because you reconnected him. You were out of line in
doing that.

 JK> I took office about at least a month AFTER Ward took office.  After
 JK> that the RC counsel here has been questioned as far as to their
 JK> preferences in having an election.

And since the RCs are appointed by the ZC and can be kicked out by the ZC, they
naturally do not insist on a ZC election..

 JK> Speaking of which, when is yours up <vbg>

Oct 12th 2011. And then I may or may not be available for another term. If I am
available for another term, it will be up to the voters.

 JK> Actually Michiel, I do hope you would continue as administrator.

Hmmm, thou speakest with a forked tongue...  ;-)


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)