Text 28766, 172 rader
Skriven 2012-05-19 09:04:23 av Roy Witt (1:387/22)
  Kommentar till text 28735 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
Ärende: Janis defintions...
===========================
18 May 12 00:35, Richard Webb wrote to Roy Witt:

 RW> Dashing this off rather quickly as I have to pick up a radio net at
 RW> top of hour now 36 past.

K

 Roy>>> Since there is a Fidonews Editor listed in the nodelist as 1:1/1
 Roy>>> (per policy), she is acting in accordance with it. If there was a
 Roy>>> 2:2/2 Fnews Editor called for in policy, your arguement might
 Roy>>> stand a chance.

 RW>> Maybe so, p4 still has teh 1:1/1 language.

 RW> <big snip>

 Roy>> A problem for the zonegates to work out, for sure. But until policy
 Roy>> is changed, oh hum...yawn.

 RW>> figure.  Tom begged the *c's to issue him another address

 RW> <snip>

 Roy>> It seems that he griped a lot about many things, including P4 when
 Roy>> it finally appeared to become Fidonet law. Thing is, he was ignored
 Roy>> and policy still stands today. And, just like today, many things in
 Roy>> it were ignored during that time as well as now.

 RW> Indeed.  And so it goes.

 RW>> No, file distribution and echomail are not within the
 RW>> purview of the *c structure.

 Roy>> That should be a 'yes' - then.

 RW> Probably so, in fact yes.

 RW>> But, IN the section on regional coordinators it does stipulate
 RW>> that an rc is supposed to facilitate the distribution and
 RW>> availability of fidonews.

 Roy>> And, for all intents as purposes, they are available on Janis'
 Roy>> system ... don't know about the other two, but as RCs, they
 Roy>> probably have them available as well. But, as I was told many years
 Roy>> ago by a former RC10, 'if you want those files, you'll have to get
 Roy>> them from your NC, since it is her job to handle them, not mine'
 Roy>> (his).

 RW> YEs, and waht I do if there's an article of interest
 RW> pertinent to fIdonet in either I make sure it gets saved
 RW> even if from the echo.

 RW>> Then, we have under 6.1:

 RW> <snip>

 Roy>> Which the ZC1 does, btw...


 RW> YEah, it's available.  NOte mark Lewis and I and our
 RW> comments on coordinator versus manager or other definitions.

 Roy>>> As sysops comprising the NAB (140/1, 261/38 and 123/500 - a
 Roy>>> non-Fidonet sanctioned body/entity), they are under no obligation
 Roy>>> to distribute anything they don't agree to distribute as grunt
 Roy>>> sysops, per policy.

 RW>> Then there's that.  Which is why this one is going to fester
 RW>> evermore.

 Roy>> That was a ruling handed down by Satti when people began to bitch
 Roy>> about Souvestre's distribution system policy (Bodger was ZEC then).

 RW> Indeed, recall that one.  That's where I first got my pet
 RW> phrase re echomail and policy "just don't step in it ... "
 RW> etc.

One cannot be too careful. OTH, watch out for the back-hand swing of the
Dossche.

 Roy>> Basically, 'since echomail is not covered by Fidonet policy, the
 Roy>> distribution systems are acting on their own as individual sysops.'

 RW>> Were I having to judge though I'd say that the distribution
 RW>> of the echo was one thing, the distribution of the publication
 RW>> another.  When you take your backbone star hat off and put your *c
 RW>> hat on that puts a different spin on things when it comes to the
 RW>> FIdonews publication as a stand alone thing.

 Roy>> Neither of which makes it mandatory to distribute any files, not
 Roy>> agreed to distribute via an echomail or filegate backbone.

 RW> MIght be, depends on how you interpret it.  I can see the
 RW> merit in both sides of that argument.  Policy, and rulings
 RW> by international coordinators in the past speak with forked
 RW> tongue on the issue.

We're all familiar with that.

 RW> Either Fidonet fully encompasses the distribution systems that
 RW> utilize it, and therefore can make rules governing their activity, or
 RW> it doesn't and can't.

Since the present ZC1 and Satti's 20yo (read never recinded) policy
interpretation calls for a seperate policy that is merged with the present
or modified version of P4 (1989 version), calling an Echomail Policy to be
consistent with policy, there is no reason to believe that Fidonet and
Echomail distributors are under any obligation to run their system via
Fidonet policy while wearing their 'distribution' hat. i.e. if they don't
want to distribute 'fidonews' either the echo or the publication, they're
not required to do so.

 RW>> When wearing your distribution system hat, you're under no
 RW>> obligation to distribute that which you don't wish to distribute.

 Roy>> Changing hats to your *C position means that you are only obligated
 Roy>> to provide those files mandated by policy, but you're not obligated
 Roy>> to distinguish between Fidonews publications - EXCEPT that which is
 Roy>> covered by policy, aka 1:1/1.

 Roy>> Had Felten the forsight at the beginning of his tenure, he would
 Roy>> have grabbed that nodelisting to ensure that his publication is THE
 Roy>> official Fidonews that must be distributed.

 RW> That makes sense too.

 RW>> But then we can all sit here in echomail and p4 lawyer this
 RW>> thing to death.  This is, at this point a matter for the zcc to
 RW>> decide. SO, to each one of them, "your mission, Mister Phelps,
 RW>> should you choose to accept it ... "  "this tape will self destruct
 RW>> in 30 seconds."

 Roy>> I suspect that the ZCC will follow policy on that one.

 RW> I suspect that the zcc will do just what it has done, and
 RW> let the p4 lawyers continue to beat each other up in
 RW> echomail and watch the excrement fly.

They should pay close attention to what is said. Someday they may actually
have to make a decision on it.

 RW> After all that's got to be more entertaining <g>.  After all, two of
 RW> them are partisans when it comes to this whole mess, and the other
 RW> three obviously could care less.

Could be.

 RW> Whatever, I'll cherry pick good content if it's there from either and
 RW> do the same myself.  An interesting debate on many levels,  but
 RW> that's about the level at which I participate in this whole
 RW> controversy, as an exercise in mental gymnastics.  I'm just as glad
 RW> I'm not one of the other zc's because somebody might actually expect
 RW> me to help deal with all the noise.

Well, at least what you would have to say about it would be up for grabs
by one side or the other.

 RW> IT's a lot easier to just plink at targets from out here in the
 RW> boonies and laugh ya know <grin>.

Entertainment at its best.

                R\%/itt



... besides, IMNSHO, Ward Dossche should resign as ZC2 and surrender his
... net node-number to the ZCC !            - Cato the Elder -


--- Twit(t) Filter v2.1 (C) 2000-10
 * Origin: Roiz Flying \A/ Service * South Texas * USA * (1:387/22)