Text 491, 110 rader
Skriven 2006-04-25 12:01:17 av Roy Witt (1:1/22)
    Kommentar till text 450 av Vladimir Donskoy (2:5020/2992)
Ärende: none
============
25 Apr 06 11:51, Vladimir Donskoy wrote to Roy Witt:

 VD>>> I wrote about one of technical purposes of own zone - ZMH problem.
 RW>> There has never been a ZMH problem in Fidonet. ZMH is rarely
 RW>> enforced.
 VD> But Policy4 demand ZMH!

Yes it does, but that policy has been a deterant to progress in Fidonet
for 16 years now. In the past, it was used to beat the sysops into
submission by the *Cs. I'll bet the same thing is happening in your region
now.

Anyway, the rest of Fidonet no longer requires that sysops comply with
ZMH.

 RW>> If the sysops in R50 need to have a ZMH, set a time that suites your
 RW>> needs and don't let anyone bully you into what they think it should
 RW>> be.
 VD> In my opinion, ZMH is necessary to replace in general with "an
 VD> operating time of node", a maximum having designated a special
 VD> nodelist flag time of the minimal congestion (load) node (for example
 VD> - #XY with any values X and Y).

That's the wrong use for that flag, but I suppose anything is possible if
the need is there. Perhaps a better solution would be for your ZC to
create a nodelist flag that indicates a ZMH other than the zone's ZMH. ZMH
being the best flag for that purpose, of course.

 VD>>> Time Z2MH is not usable not only for east but for west of Russia -
 VD>>> Moscow time 6:30-7:30 isn't correct for home and particulary office
 VD>>> nodes!
 RW>> Well, that's not a very good arguement against your present ZMH.
 RW>> Unless you're saying that people don't get up early enough to turn
 RW>> on their computer and have it ready for ZMH when the hour comes. The
 RW>> BBSs and those whose systems are online all the time have no room to
 RW>> argue that point. Their systems are, or should be, automatic.

 VD> You don't understand me - people may (want) have incoming (or
 VD> outgoing) voice calls at this time!

I understood that part. You've clearly explained that only one phone line
is available, although two are also available at a high cost.

The combination of the Thg flag (available 0730-0630 (23hours)) and a ZMH
flag, using the same Tyz schedule - ZMH:vw, indicating that your ZMH is
from 2130 to 2230 (just as an example). Your region could implement this
without a problem by placing the ZMH flag after the User flag, i.e.
U,ZMH:vw - no ZC aproval required, just your RC's...

 VD>  In your country peoples may have same phone lines and lease one of
 VD> them for FIDO only, but in our country law protect having two phone
 VD> lines on one apartment (but it may only for many money; and lots
 VD> peoples have not a phone), so we have only one phone on FIDO and
 VD> voice.
 VD>>> So "limit" nodes for relocate - all Russia (not Whiterussia or
 VD>>> Ukraina, which have time zone UTC+2).
 RW>> Here's what you can do. The RC is the only one who's going to be
 RW>> contacted by the ZC during ZMH. The rest of R50 doesn't have to
 RW>> comply with the ZCs ZMH, as it's none of his business. All of your
 RW>> NCs can comply with the Z2Cs ZMH, or not. But all others don't have
 RW>> to worry about that. They can use an hour that's convenient for them
 RW>> and their *C. Say 0100-0200 local time. Then, only the RC is
 RW>> responsible to the ZC and the NCs are only responsible to the RC.
 RW>> That leaves the whole issue as moot, as far as the ZC is concerned.
 RW>> Then you set up a routing system that only certain systems use to
 RW>> pass netmail to the other sysops.

 VD> This is contradictory Policy... But really we in fact make this.

Yes, that's the way it is in all of Fidonet.

 VD> You ignore other moment of ZMH - guarantee (warrant) send and receive
 VD> netmail to node (for complain purposes, for example). So route for
 VD> netmail is not guarantee this and not change to direct connections.

 VD>>> I think that many our problem will decide in Z2 if Ward change his
 VD>>> position

 RW>> Never.

 VD> :-) so will change self Ward. He have 55 years old - go to pension!
 VD> :-)

You can elect your own ZC if you want to...

 VD>>> (or if Russian will elect to Z2C),

 RW>> Call for an election, but get your region to agree on one person
 RW>> before you call for it. R50 outnumbers the rest of Z2, so whoever
 RW>> you choose is a shoe-in.

 VD> Contradictory Policy - election ZC by RCs, not majority sysops...

Yes it is, but it has been done in Z1 this way. The NCs polled their nodes
and the general consensus of their nets were sent to the election
coordinator as a vote by the net. The election coordinator tallied up the
Region votes (we have 10 regions) and the candidate with the most RC votes
was chosen as the ZC.

 VD> So region with 1 sysop (Bjorn Felten for example) have so much votes
 VD> how much our region with 3000 sysops.

This is why you want to forget about doing it according to policy and do
it as I've suggested. You'll never get anywhere going by a policy that
protects the *Cs from the sysops vote.


Roy
--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000
 * Origin: Hacienda de Rio de Guadalupe * South * Texas, USA * (1:1/22)