Text 3382, 56 rader
Skriven 2004-12-17 03:00:54 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
   Kommentar till text 3336 av SHANNON TALLEY (1:275/311)
Ärende: Z1B <> EP1
==================
SHANNON TALLEY -> MATT BEDYNEK wrote:

 ST> What "exactly" is it about Thom's list you don't like?  I asked you this
 ST> before, and you stated something about the fact it's his list...  You are
 ST> going to have to spell it out for me.

I have no problem with it at all.  The problem I have is those who argue that
what it says is set in stone.  Do you not see what problems that might cause
and has caused?  This area for example is moderated by someone who does not
believe the echolist.  The area was listed by a sysop in this zone and suddenly
everyone (Z1) considers that sysop the moderator and uses that as an excuse to
defy the real moderator who does post rules on a regular basis and is active in
the echo.  Therefore, the problem is not with the echolist but those who use it
for hijacking. Some argue that the echolist prevents hijacking but I see that
it only exchanges one form of hijacking for another (based on use).

 ST> I know it's not "officially" part of Fidonet, but there is "no" list
 ST> that is
 ST> officially "part" of fidonet (that I'm aware --- damn sure ain't the
 ST> backstat.na).  I don't want to see a "new" list get created either, but
 ST> what
 ST> the heck.. Fidonet is disintegrating for many reasons, and one of the big
 ST> ones is that an "official -- up-to-date -- list" isn't not maintained that
 ST> defines which echos are Fidonet echos.  Without a definitive list, I can
 ST> carry newsgroups, maintain a node number, and simply call it Fidonet.

There does not need to be a board or group of sysops to oversee an echolist. 
In fact, it is not possible and cannot be expected.  Thom runs his echolist how
he sees fit.  You either accept it or you do not.  Discussion of changing how
he runs it is pointless.  I am sure we can propose ideas but it is tantamount
to me proposing an idea on how you should run your household.  The smart thing
to do is simply to lay a groundwork such that we have some unity of mail
distribution.  Obviously that does not exist.  Some mail hubs in this zone
pledge to use the echolist unconditionally and others (me) will ignore echolist
entries in the case where it is obvious that the entry is inaccurate.  The
echolist is a database and the data can be inaccurate.

 ST> Well, are we going to be the ones that continue this trend or the ones who
 ST> fix it?

 ST> IMHO, these folks in this echo, and a few more who aren't, are the ones
 ST> with
 ST> the ability to make changes that can keep Fidonet afloat a little longer.

 ST> I asked Janis to join in this thread too.  She and her family are fighting
 ST> off the flu, but she will catch up with us eventually.

I say the best way to get things back on track is to develop standards.  Right
now, Fidonet is not going any place, but it is going "places"; a little here, a
little there, many two way streets, no more superhighway.  You're lucky if you
can figure out how to connect to nodes in the nodelist.  Every coordinator
lists nodes how they choose, every hub moves mail how he wants, there is no
team effort anymore.

---
 * Origin: thunderdome server project - fido.thunderdome.us (1:106/1)