Text 20558, 58 rader
Skriven 2008-09-09 18:23:08 av Janis Kracht (1:261/38)
  Kommentar till text 20543 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
Ärende: Echotag Madness
=======================
Hello Michiel,

>>> So if P4 is to be strictly enforced how come:

>>> 1) There are nodes in Z1 Region 14 who's only listed means of contact
>>> is binkp This is a clear violation of policy as it mandates Jennings
>>> Protocol (FTS-0001 as a minimum requirement for FidoNet membership.

>> Stop confusing people.  It is not a violation of P4 if an RC, NC or
>> SysOp uses any method under TCP/IP to communicate in the network

>You are the one spreading confusion. By mixing uo the minimum requirement with
>actual use. Nothing wrong with using whatever is convenient. Not supporting th
> minimum requirement - presently laid down in FTS-0001.016 - is a violation of
> policy.

Does your internet mailer drop down to fts-001?  Mine does.  Most internet
mailers do not however.  We don't require phone lines here because it is an
added expence.  Therefore, fts-001 may or may not be applicable.

>>> 2) Net 1:282 and 1:288 have the same NC. A clear violation of policy
>>> as policy requires nets to be non-overlapping and *Cs to be a member
>>> of the geographic region administered.

>> In Zone 1, we are more practical than you would have us be I suppose.

>It is the same in other zones. Most people take a "practical attitude" when it
> comes to following policy. This is however just another way of saying that
> policy is not followed to the letter. The parts that are no longer convenient
> are ignored.

We don't ignore it.  We use other methods to eventually come around to the same
end, which is connectivity.

> a coordinator who on the hand hand claims that policy should strictly be
> followed, not subject to whether it is convenient or not and who on the other
>hand allows violations like the above, is not practising what he/she preaches.
> Jeff Smith in one of thoes.

I didn't see Jeff doing that.  Perhaps he did, but I didn't see it.

>>> Your are an RC. RC1:14 to be precise. Upholding policy is part of
>>> your job. So if you say policy should be enforced why do you allow
>>> these violations?

>> You are way off on this one.

> I hit the nail right in the head. Jeff does not practise what he preaches. He
> seems to prefer to not answer my questions.

No, I think you are off, Michiel.  As far as Zone 1 goes, you have no idea how
we do things it seems.

Take care,
Janis

--- BBBS/LiI v4.01 Flag
 * Origin: Prism bbs (1:261/38)