Text 825, 111 rader
Skriven 2006-05-02 12:16:41 av Vladimir Donskoy (2:5020/2992)
    Kommentar till text 714 av Philip Lozier (1:267/169)
Ärende: Re: none
================
Hi Philip!

Friday April 28 2006, Philip Lozier wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 VD>> I was ask you last year and have no your answer for now - what
 VD>> document list (have) this? Is not exist FTS discribe it! So - all
 VD>> of this is you private opinion, not true (not law). Every zone may
 VD>> have all regional slots, not only 10!

 PL> As in the idea of the ZMH thing being "in the head", the regional
 PL> allocations in zones is very much the same.  It may have been documented
 PL> at some point, but nobody seems to be able to cite the document.

No, about ZMH write in Policy - about "head" in 2.1.8.
But about regional slots - never!

So, if not exist any document about regional slots in zones, that we can ignore
all "not-write rules" and can make how much regions as need.

 PL> The idea is that as zones 1-6 are exclusic=ve zone numbers, so the regions
 PL> with a zone are exclusive, and nets as well.  Throughout FidoNet, no
 PL> region or net should have a counterpart within any other zone...
 PL> misconfiguration could cause havok with nodelist lookups on softwares.

This is not true - R55 have in Z2 and Z3, for example.
And more - idea "zone-gating" for echoes based on not-unique numbers of nodes
at other zones!

 PL> The idea of a set number of regions within a zone goes towrds the "weight"
 PL> issue in voting where RC votes are concerned.  The "ckecks and measures"
 PL> as cited in policy.  No particular area gets the dominant stance. Balance.

And have no democraty.

 PL> Past the regional slots, within regions a set range of net numbers are set
 PL> for each region to avoid duplicates that may cause problems... when this
 PL> little net here almost died off about 6 years ago or so, Carol helped us
 PL> bring it back.  Upon revival I had asked Carol if we could reallocate it
 PL> as net 518 (to reflect our area code) and it was then explained to me how
 PL> it worked and why that was not possible.  I am not the technician of the
 PL> design, but when expalined it made soemwhat of sense to me.

 CS>>> I've already had to disabuse a few folks that this means Z6 is no
 CS>>> longer reserved for Fidonet use. To use it for R50 when I am here,
 CS>>> means it will be a scheduled reasonable shift not a splinter of all
 CS>>> R50.  To use it after I am gone, will be up to the ZCC.  The
 CS>>> 'vote/referendum' showed me pretty clear that R50 doesnt want to
 CS>>> change as a group, just a small portion of it and not suffienct
 CS>>> support in R50 alone to cause the people there the problems that
 CS>>> *will* ensue.

 VD>> It is a pity, but as I and wrote it here - ignorance of internal
 VD>> our circumstances has caused acceptance of the incorrect
 VD>> (unreasoned) decision.
 VD>> I already specified here percent of sysops which at us in general
 VD>> participate in a public life (vote), and according to it this
 VD>> interrogation was quite representative.

 PL> Present the idea again... no multiple choice responses,,, simple:

 PL> R50 moves as a whole to Z6 or not.  Simple.

 PL> The understanding is that you would recieve a certain number of slots for
 PL> nodelisting purposes.  What woulf be gained is at least 5 times better
 PL> than what you now have (as far as slots are concerned) as some regional
 PL> slots would need to be preserved for potential future use by other parts
 PL> of Asia, yet, you are STILL 5 times better off than before.  Maybe some
 PL> areas not in use could be allocated to R3 time zone wise to give you guys
 PL> what you want, but you guys have to play within the chalk lines too.

 PL> To take the idea as it seems to turn every net in the current region in a
 PL> newly aquired zone is ludicrous.  That is not at all realistic. More
 PL> realistic is the idea that your region aquires say 5 slotas in the new
 PL> zone as regions.  Amongst those regions the nets reorganize themselves and
 PL> remove dead weight, and each net uses the HUB struture within itself for
 PL> easier administration.

 PL> One of the most misconcieved notions in the past has been that the "hub"
 PL> keyword was involved with echomail, when in fact the intent of it was for
 PL> handling host routed netmail within a net.  This would suit you guys to a
 PL> tee if properly used.

 PL> R50 migrates to Z6... say 5 reions... nets within the regions use the hub
 PL> system for administration and effectively the hub operators are co-NC's
 PL> within the nets and administration tasks allocated are made easier all
 PL> around... nets within the main net.

 PL> Maybe I'm not explaining properly (too much Beck's right now you know) but
 PL> I have it in my head.  Netmail me tommorow and I'll likely be able to
 PL> explain it better as I see it.

I understand you, but you forget about size of R50... It is very difficult
process.

 PL> BTW... I have two Russians in my net who now reside in NY... formerly Fido
 PL> nodes in Russia... at least one used to be R50, maybe both but I'm not
 PL> sure.

 PL> I have also noted that in the past few days that several Russian origins
 PL> have been logging into my BBS to check it out.  I attribute it to my open
 PL> willingness to dodge the nay sayers and support what you guys want.  For
 PL> all those who support your stance and want your own independance that you
 PL> deserve in FidoNet, I just want you to know you have a freind on this side
 PL> of the globe.

OK, thank you.

Regards, Vladimir Donskoy

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20060326
 * Origin: DVB Station (2:5020/2992)