Text 3964, 106 rader
Skriven 2004-12-21 11:51:00 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 3870 av Matt Bedynek (1:106/1)
Ärende: Z1B <> EP1
==================
Hello Matt,

I liked you article in FidoNews. Would you agree that a web site (such as the
one offered by David Drummond) qualifies as a "Bulletin Board"?

 >  MvdV> OTOH, applying the concept of ownership to echomail
 >  MvdV> areas makes no sense to me. Not from the hobby point
 >  MvdV> of view, why would anyone want to drag lawyers into
 >  MvdV> a hobby?, nor from the legal point of view; you
 >  MvdV> can't own what you can't control.

 > I do not believe in tag overship because tag ownership is
 > not defined in any fidonet document.

Indeed it is not. So if we use that concept we have to refer to the real word
for the definition of ownership. And then we run into silly things like lawyers
and courts of law. Sidenote: you say "tag ownership", others say "echo
ownership". I think these are slightly different things. (Neither of which make
much sense to me).

 > But a moderator who maintains an area should be able to do so
 > with the support of Fidonet, policy and those who move mail
 > and there should be consequences for those who do not.

Well, yes, it is either that or anarchy.

 > If not, then how can you advocate the part of policy that
 > says echomail is another form of netmail, a position you have
 > taken before, if I am not mistaken?

You are not mistaken. It is my position that policy is clear in this matter and
that echomail is indeed another form of netmail.

And so policy applies to it.

 > For those who disrupt an echo that consequence might be an EAB
 > complaint.

Indeed that should be a possible consequence.

Some how it never seems to have come to that though.

 > It seems to me, it is all about people being afraid to take
 > responsibility for their actions and those of others (in the
 > case of downlinks, points and even users).

That may be the case in Z1 where the part of "echomail is a special flavour of
netmail" is de facto rejected.

In Z2, *C's also reject complaints about echomail, but then they do so with a
reference to the echomail policy and they send parties to the *EC's. The
general idea being that a conflict over echomail should be resolved according
to Echopol1.

So far this seems to have worked. I suppose it would be possible that parties
involved come back to the *C with: "we have tried to solve this with the aid of
the *EC's and Echopol1, but we are at a dead end, so we now wish to evoke the
clause that says "echomail is a special flavour of netmail". But as far as I
know that hasn't happened yet.

A bit more on EP1. That is on-topic now, as there was a reprint of EP1 in the
last FidoNews. ;-)

Frankly I don't understand why Z1 rejected EP1. It was adopted in Z2 with the
firm belief that it would also be adopted in Z1. Then we would have had a de
facto global echomail policy. Had it been foreseen that EP1 would be rejected
in Z1, I doubt it would have been adopted in Z2.

It is a mystery to me why Z1 has Echomail Coordinators when they do not have a
policy to define their rights and duties. it is a mystery to me why they have
an echolist keeper when they do not have a policy to define his rights and
duties.

Well, Z1 rejected EP1 and went for another set of rules that are totally
incompatible with the system used in Z2 and so now we have a serious problem.
The problem is aggrevated because the system for resolving echomail disputes in
use in Z1 is falling apart.

Contrary to EP1 the system of SLA's and an echolist depends on unilateral
imposed rules. There is no balance of power, it is all done by decree.

Now that works as long as there is a significant imbalance of power between the
giving and the receiving parties. "You want echomail form me? Here are the
rules, take it or leave it." It works as long as the demand is greater than the
supply and the suppliers can avoid competition by forming kartels.

But that system is breaking down. The backbones are not needed any more, anyone
can link to whoever willing to link. So now the supply exceeds the demand and
customers can tell a supplier with dictatorial tendencies to take a hike.

I think it is a good thing that FidoNet has freed itself from the stranglehold
of echomail suppliers and cost sharing organisations.

The backside of the medal is of course that in those parts of FidoNet where an
echomail policy is not in force, moderators are in serious trouble. They are on
their own as their main allies, the suppliers, have lost their grip on the
users. The drug of echomail is now freely available at any street corner.

So if Z1 and the other zones that do not have an echomail policy do not want
total anarchy, they should seriously consider a late adoption of EP1. Better
late than never.

Cheers, Michiel

--- InterMail 2.50
 * Origin: If privacy is outlawed, only outlaws have privacy. (2:280/5555)