Text 403, 91 rader
Skriven 2006-04-23 17:27:02 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
    Kommentar till text 361 av Vladimir Donskoy (2:5020/2992)
Ärende: none
============
Hello Vladimir.

21 Apr 06 11:02, you wrote to me:
 MV>> 1) How is having a zone of your own going to solve the ZMH
 MV>> problem? It would *still* be 9 hours wide at least. Unless your
 MV>> break it up into several smaller zones you will still be saddlded
 MV>> with an inconvenient ZMH.

 VD> Transferring ZMH into time more convenient for us will already solve
 VD> the most part of this problem. To split up a zone for fine zones there
 VD> is no need, because section 10.2 Policy can be changed by the
 VD> appropriate Zone Coordinator, and 2.1.13 also "ZMH establishe by ZC".
 VD> Anywhere in Policy not it is told that ZMH there should be the unique
 VD> for all zone


Right. So poof goes your argument for a zone of your own. Region or net
specific hours can be introduced without splitting the zone.

 MV>> 2) You say this has been going on for 15 years. Yet you *never*
 MV>> filed a proposal to change Z2MH in all those years. You should
 MV>> have done that 10 years ago when it still mattered. Now it is
 MV>> just water under the bridge. Besides their are alternative
 MV>> solutions; you already mentioned one yourself> NMH. There is not
 MV>> really a rule that dictates that a zone can only have *one* ZMH. Yet
 MV>> you never even brought the matter up.

 VD> Yes, but Ward has refused to make it.

Maybe that is because you never properly proposed it. How come I have never
seen something from your RC in ENET.SYSOP or REGCON.EUR about this. Or perhaps
your RC does not support the idea? That would explain a lot.

 MV>> 3) You shot yourself in the foot with your Z6 number. For that
 MV>> number you have to onbserve Z6MH. which is ... eh . .somewhere
 MV>> around noon local for you. That does not seem to bother you
 MV>> though.... Poof goes your ZMH argument.

 VD> The significant part of nodes R50 already now observes Z6MH (look
 VD> nodelist on a flag #20).

Bad argument. Tat flag is for support of *additional* ZMH. It does not absolve
the node in question from supporting his own ZMH. This flag was meant for
gateways, never for end nodes. Use by end nodes is silly as it only imposes
unneeded resterictions. Whn one flies this flag one must observe ALL
requirements fot that extra ZMH: i.e. no users, no echomial, etc etc.

The sensible way to specify extra on-line hours is by the Tyz flags. That awy
one does not jave to exclude users and echomail traffic during that time.

 MV>> What other problems?

 VD> It is a lot of them, and I am not authorized (have not the right) to
 VD> notify all world on them now.

Authorised?! By whom? The KGB?

 VD> In particular, it and granting of rights PVT-nodes, the rights of
 VD> moderators in echoes, and a problem of the responsibility of points...

You can all do that without your own zone. It has been done by others before.

 VD> I only have designated problems and now them I will not discuss.

If you keep it a secret you cabn not expect others to go along with it.

 VD>>> At first Ward must want self-election. And on current time we
 VD>>> have only 1 vote on Z2C election - so, Russian ZC can't
 VD>>> victory...

 MV>> I am not sure you have even that one vote, Your RC appears not to
 MV>> be all that enthousiastic about the Z7 idea.

 VD> You have not information.

Indeed, I have no information leading to the POV that he support your POV. Is
ee that you are not claiming to have his support.

 MV>> Even zo, you can't get *one* other RC to support your case? Not
 MV>> even ONE out of the odd thirty o so. Not *ONE*???

 VD> R46C, may be. R40C also may be. And R50C - summary 3 votes :-( .

So maybe you rcase is not all that string. If your ideas were *good* one would
expect more support.


Michiel

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