Text 1781, 186 rader
Skriven 2004-11-12 15:19:00 av Robert Couture (2161.fidonews)
   Kommentar till text 1778 av Roy Witt (1:10/22)
Ärende: Re: Science 1/2
=======================
-=> Roy Witt wrote to Robert Couture <=-

 MvV>> The "no moderators emeriti" rule did not exist before...

 RC> So why should it now?

 RW> The 'no moderator emeriti' and other titles has existed for at least
 RW> two years now.  That's why the former moderator of AUTOMOTIVE (for 10
 RW> years) is listed as 'moderator emeriti' in the echo rules but not the
 RW> echolisting.

How long agao did Bjorn take over as FidoNews Editor?

 RC>   That doesn't make a lot of sense.  However, you cannot just say
 RC> Moderators Emeriti either.  That is a little vague since that could
 RC> give moderatorship to someone that is not a member of FidoNet anymore
 RC> :)

 RW> Right! It's usually someone who is no longer in Fidonet that has given
 RW> the echo to someone else before they left. To honor them, they were
 RW> formerly listed in the echolisting as emeritis. The rules about those
 RW> listings were changed a while back for technical reasons, not Thom's
 RW> personal reasons.

What technical reasons were given?  I am curious what they were.

 RC> There is a double standard there.

 RW> Not really. Moderators are free to list or not to list. The way to keep
 RW> the echo from being stolen if it isn't, is to list it and keep it
 RW> listed.

That's only part of it though.  The arm bending comes from the fact that Z1
backbones refuse to carry echoes that are not in the echolist.  That basically
forces a moderator to use the echolist.

I don't necessarily agree with that stance.

I wholeheartedly agree with the basic tenets of the echolist as a tool for
listing the true moderator of an echo.

I am concerned if things happen due to politics or personal grievances or the
like.  If Thom refused to list or modifies an echo because of anything but
purely technical reasons is improper in my opinion.  Even when it is a
technical issue, I think the moderator should be contacted first and asked to
correct the issue.

This is, of course, just an opinion.

I really don't think Thom should have modified the SCIENCE echo.  At the same
time, I don't think Michiel should have pushed the issue as he did.  He
basically painted himself into that corner.

 RW> The other way is to arrange an agreement with those who distribute the
 RW> echo for you and keep the echo privately distributed by invitation or
 RW> request.  That was proven for Vlist when Moravisik tried to hijack the
 RW> ZCC_PUBLIC echo by listing it in the echolist as being his echo, rather
 RW> than the Z2Cs. Those who distributed the echo in Z1 refused to allow
 RW> Moravisik control of it. They even changed the echo tag so that the
 RW> echo could be distributed here while the listing was corrected.

This shows that the differing systems can work together.  Unlike how the
ZCC_PUBLIC issue has been portrayed by some, it looks like it was resolved in
respect of Z2.

 RC> Why is that logical?

 RW> Because he's being stubborn in his view of how things work in Z1 and
 RW> although he knows EP1 has no jurisdiction outside of certain parts of
 RW> Z2, he claims to adhere to it for arguements' sake.

However, Z1 rules do not pertain to Z2 in the same way EP1 does not pertain
here.  And that does create conflict.

 RC> Yes.  This is a problem.

 RW> Problem with that scenario is that Felten already knew that the echo
 RW> must be listed and there's no excuse for not doing so. He knows how the
 RW> echolist works.

What about the issue of Thom causing problems with the listing?  (Denying it I
believe?)  Why should that have been allowed?

 RC> Why call it dancing?  What is the necessity of turning this into a
 RC> negativity instead of seeing it for what it was - a positive step to
 RC> a proper conclusion.

 RW> Because he wants to make waves, nothing else.

Partially.  But I think there are some important issues in the background that
are the root of this discussion.

 RC> So?  All that is need to ensure distribution on Z1 backbones for the
 RC> entry to exist.  It matters not what is listed besides the moderators
 RC> name.  The rest is basically frivolous.

 RW> Yeup.

Yes.  I do not understand why the conflict started in the forst place.  It
seems that Thm refused to accept Bjorn's llisting.  I want to know why.

 RC> Nothing.  But, as everyone pointed out with DNS, it is not a part of
 RC> FidoNet.

 RW> Not only that, but it also lists echos for other networks. In fact, the
 RW> author of the software used to list them was written by someone in
 RW> another network.

Yes, exactly.

 MvV>> I don't get it.

 RC> I know.  It doesn't make much sense does it.

 RW> Because they're very aware of the corrupt former Z2 echolist keeper and
 RW> they don't forget very easily. When Adrian Walker announced that his
 RW> list would be transferred to Z2 when he would leave Fidonet, not very
 RW> many moderators were happy about it. At that time, there were two
 RW> entities vying for echolist keeper in Z1, Bob Kohl/Zorch Frezberg,
 RW> neither of which were trusted. BK being the elected Z1EC under
 RW> questionable circumstances automatically gave Thom the green light when
 RW> he appeared with his version. 99.9% of the moderators in Z1 flocked to
 RW> Thom's list and the party was over for BK/ZF. You should note that
 RW> there were some times that Thom's actions were questionable during
 RW> certain situations, but he's overcome any adversity that may have
 RW> arisen from them.

Yes, but Thom has created some problems now.  The issue with the SCIENCE echo
just brought up the issue with the FidoNews echo again.

I think Thom did overstep when he altered the SCIENCE echo.  I don't think he
should arbitrarily alter an echo listing.  Everybody knows that there has been
an issue with Michiel using the term "echolist maffia" [sic].  It seems that
there is a root cause for the SCIENCE echo being altered.

That being besides the fact that Michiel was being pretty stupid and not
knowing the etymology of the word in question.

 >> That was unfortunate.

 RC> This is also a fairly new concept.

 RW> Why would anyone respect another zone's rules when their rules allow
 RW> someone to arbitrarily hijack someone else's echo?

How so.  I requested a copy of EP1 from Michiel.  I haven't received it yet. 
If he so strongly supports it, I would expect that he would have sent it to me.

However, he seems to be behind on his messages.  Either that, or he just wants
to continure on his "No Comment" thing.  That bothers me because he refuses to
accept that he can be his own worst enemy and has his own responsibilty in what
transpires.  It is not everyone else's fault only.

 MvV>> On the contrary. What I heard were smirking sounds to the effect of
 MvV>> "it wouldn't have happened had Björn updated the listing."

 RC> Well, I hate to say it, but it is fact.

 >> If so, I am going to have to retract that.

 MvV>> Ok.

 MvV>> So are you now going to ask the echolist keeper to correct the
 MvV>> list?

 RC> Sure, Hey Thom, correct the echolist.  Do you really think he would
 RC> listen?

 RW> Why should Thom change that which has been corrected in light of what
 RW> Vlist claimed before it was corrected?

Depends on whether you are refering to SCIENCE or FIDONEWS echo.  If you are
refering to the SCIENCE echo, while you might think it true, I disagree only on
the basis that I don't think Thom should be modifying the echolist unless he
has not been able to get the moderator to make the change, and only on purely
technical grounds.  (Or perhaps if the echolisting was offensive.)

If you are talking about FIDONEW, I am afraid I missed all of that fun and have
to reserve judgment still.

Robert.

 
--- MultiMail/Win32 v0.46
--- SBBSecho 2.10-Linux
 * Origin: -=RuneKeep=- telnet://runekeep.darktech.org (1:229/440)