Text 2643, 169 rader
Skriven 2006-12-17 17:20:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 2639 av Roy Witt (1:397/22)
Ärende: ION *C's
================
Hello Roy!

On Saturday December 16 2006 13:13, you wrote to me:

 RW>>> Those are/were the 'static' IPs of those who didn't have a clue
 RW>>> as to how to set up a DNS that could have fit in several places.

 MvdV>> Setting up host name through DNS may have been a problem for
 MvdV>> some of them,

 RW> There's no difference in a DNS whether their IP is Static or Dynamic,
 RW> the DNS lookup servers will still connect you to their IP.

There is, but it is not relevant for the issue at hand.

 MvdV>> but is is no excuse for abusing the phone number field. He
 MvdV>> who has a static IP can use it anywhere instead of a host name.
 MvdV>> That is not just Fido over IP btw, it goes for almost the
 MvdV>> entire internet. Enter my IP number in the address bar of your
 MvdV>> browser and you get my website.

 RW> Or your DNS name, if you have one.

Everyone that has a static IP has a "host name" associated with it. And so do
most dynamic IPs. Yours is adsl-69-153-6-255.dsl.snantx.swbell.net.

But you are still missing the point. which is that this ...

 RW>>> Those are/were the 'static' IPs of those who didn't have a clue
 RW>>> as to how to set up a DNS that could have fit in several places.

 ... does not hold water as a DNS is never needed for Fido over IP because the
Ip address can *always* be used in any field that accepts an fqdn.

 MvdV>> I started using DNS for my nodelisting two years ago in
 MvdV>> anticipation of a provider change that would involve a change
 MvdV>> of IP. A change that came into effect beginning this year and
 MvdV>> not only changed my IP, but changed it from static to dynamic
 MvdV>> as well. Had I not changed provider and still had that static
 MvdV>> IP, there would have been no need to get involved with DNS.

 RW> OTH, my DNS has pretty much stayed the same since I started using one,
 RW> although I've changed providers and locations several times over the
 RW> years.

Barring accidents, I do not expect my DNS to change either, while my provider
and possibly location may change many times before I hand in my dinner pale.

 RW>>> Why not just make the POTS listed node the real NC. The fake NC
 RW>>> doesn't seem to want to be capable.

 MvdV>> I can think of a couple of legitimate reasons to separate the
 MvdV>> job of host and NC. F.e. the person with the technical skills
 MvdV>> and resources to handle incoming mail for the net, may not have
 MvdV>> the diplomatic skills needed to handle complaints and silly
 MvdV>> little things like that....

 RW> Nor the desire.

Indeed.

 RW>>> Sometimes it's probably hard to find someone who wants to take
 RW>>> on the job, but I agree with you there too.

 MvdV>> As I wrote in my Snooze article, if no suitable candidate for
 MvdV>> the *C position can be found, it is time to contemplate merging
 MvdV>> nets/regions/zones....

 RW> Probably true.

It is the logical thing to do. It is what happens in real life all the time.

 MvdV>>>> How odd. I thought RC's were *elected* in your part of
 MvdV>>>> FidoNet.

 RW>>> Unless there's no one there to elect them.

 MvdV>> In that case, the region should have been disbanded.

 RW> Or those who are left merged into R15.

If there is no one left to elect a new RC, there is no one left to merge into
R15.

So if Brenda became appointed RC15 because there was no one left to elect here,
then the region was dead before she moved in.

 RW> The lower half of Z1 should probably be just one region.

But that would mean a couple of *C giving up their position and we can't have
that can we? ;-(

 RW>>>>> He used to be the REC10, but never did his job.

 MvdV>>>> What *is* the job of a REC in Z1?

 RW>>> His title is now RC and REC, which the latter means Regional
 RW>>> Echomail Coordinator.

 MvdV>> I now what it stands for, but as Z1 lacks an echomail policy,
 MvdV>> where are the duties of a REC documented?

 RW> With each RC. They serve at the whim of an RC, the same as the Z1EC
 RW> serves the Z1C.

But then if there is no generally accepted definition of the job of a *EC, you
can't really say that he is not doing his job can you?

 RW> Mainly they just make up charts of who's feeding who. If the chart is
 RW> up to date, it can also be used as an echomail routing chart. After
 RW> Robres took over as R10EC, I never saw a newer routing chart than the
 RW> one Dave Hallford produced.

As people are free to get their echomail anywhere they want and people can make
links without assistance form anyone else, and people *do* frequently change
links, these routing charts will always be out of date. Therefore using them
for netmail routing will lead to mail disappearing in black holes.

 RW>>> Shades of Bob Kohl, who manipulated the REC so much that
 RW>>> only he was 'good enough' for the position. BTW, they, or at
 RW>>> least Al Robres does absolutely nothing to coordinate echomail.

 MvdV>> So where does it say that he should?

 RW> See reference to routing chart, above.

So some ECs took it upon them to compile routing charts. But I do not see a
reference to that anywhere in policy. So that an RC should compile routing
charts is just your opinion.

 RW>>> No *C wants to make waves because they're in the same situation?

 MvdV>> There are still plenty of sysops who are not a *C and therefore
 MvdV>> should not be inhibited form speaking up.

 RW> Well, you know the nature of sheep. They only speak up when the wolves
 RW> are lurking about.

Well, the wolves *are* lurking about. The wolves of the InterNet. They took
away almost all of the users...

 RW>>> Yeah, but we have to keep the zone alive, no matter.

 MvdV>> Something I never understood. A zone is just an administrative
 MvdV>> unit. It is not a living being, so why attempt to keep it alive
 MvdV>> just for the sake of keeping it alive? I don't get it.

 RW> It certainly doesn't matter anymore, but it did matter in the last IC
 RW> election.

The IC position is a paper tiger. For all intents and purposes we are in the
same position as when there was no IC.

 MvdV>>>> Don't worry. I am not sure applause coming from you is a
 MvdV>>>> compliment.

 RW>>> You never know.

 MvdV>> Indeed, with you I will never know.

 RW> :o) I like to keep them guessing.

He who gueses may be outguessed. The best counter strategy against that is to
flip a coin. A random decision can not be outguessed....

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20060315
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)