Text 28803, 103 rader
Skriven 2012-05-21 12:34:52 av Richard Webb (1:116/901.0)
  Kommentar till text 28792 av Ward Dossche (2:292/854)
Ärende: Janis defintions...
===========================
Hello Ward,

On Sun 2012-May-20 18:50, Ward Dossche (2:292/854) wrote to Richard Webb:

<snip>
RW> HE's obviously one who thinks differently than Satti or
RW> George PEase did on the subject then.  Imho he had his
RW> chance with the draft policy effort of a few years ago.
WD>  
WD> PeaCe ...
Okay, didn't havve his name in front of me at the time, and
its mostly been spoken to me back in the day as I brailled
few fido documents, so the screenreader read them, and if I
exchanged mail with folks the automation took care of that
<g>.
Was thinking it might have been Peace.

WD> Actually, there's no reason why anyone would be obliged to copy
WD> precedent-approach. The US's legal system is like that and affords
WD> elected judges a way out if the scenery gets too hot.

OF course it does, and it does for any organization that
expects to continue to survive.  HOwever, precedent is often used as a guide,
and often "it hasn't worked that way
before" prevails within organizations or bureaucracies.  YOu know that as well
as I do.  It doesn't matter how many good
arguments there are for ignoring the precedent.  Reference
the Fidonews piece, I think Kay (last name's spelling not
clear in my brain) Shaypro.  The monkeys the hose and the
banana.

WD> I'd like to think that in Fido nothing is cast in concrete and that
WD> everything can be debated ...
Indeed.
RW> YEs we are, an ic and a zc have ruled on it in just that way iirc.
WD>  
WD> An American ZC/IC and a Canadian ZC/IC have ruled on that and never
WD> asked anyone's opinion outside the North American realm.
Maybe.  SEe below.

RW> YEup!  The trouble with that is, there was never a global
RW> echomail or other distribution policy put in place as a
RW> companion to p4, at least not globally.  In z2 they have
RW> ep1, but that boat didn't float elsewhere.

WD> For starters , that particular ZC ruled for Z1 but never gave a hoot
WD> about the other zones. SO whatever he ruled about is valid for
WD> somewhere between 450-500 sysops. THe remaining 91% of Fidonet is
WD> not affected. (and doesn't care)  
WD> Second, EP1 was written in and for Z1.
That was its intentions, I've read the discussions leading
up to it.  There were three basic camps in the echomail
policy wars iirc.

Camp 1:  A moderator is sole owner of his echo and can do
what he damned well pleases with it, you have no say.  If
you're banned, too bad.

#2.  The distribution system needs to be able to regulate
that which is distributes adn transports, but otherwise,
moderator = god in his/her echoes.

#3.  Boo hoo hoo, we need an appeals committee and a
bureaucracy so that some guy who posts porn in a juvenile
echo can lawyer the distribution system and the moderator to death.

From the very day p4 landed on disks throughout the network
it said that a global echomail policy would be developed as
an adjunct to p4.  That never happened.

RW> OF course they should, but, now this is purely conjecture on my part, but
RW> from all appearances the other three zone
RW> coordinators are taking the attitude that they don't have a
RW> dog in this fight.

WD> Z3C is pretty much active. Don't confuse small size with not being
WD> vocal. He makes sense a lot of time, if not all of the time.
I'm sure, that doesn't mean he's not a little leery of this
one.  Couldn't blame him if her were.  Wasn't saying that to "cast aspersions"
on any of the other three.  Were I one of
them I'd weigh my words very carefully before i pulled the
trigger and sent that packet into the ether.  I'm not
though, I'm just a guy that writes for various FIdo
publications that turns knobs on a mixer adn does a lot of
work helping missionaries and cruisers at sea with my ham
radio.  I'm not running for election to anything in FIdonet, and I'm not a
politician, but were I in their position I'd
be very careful too.  AFter all, the goal would be to put
the fire out, not fan the flames.
Imho this was inevitable and I could see it coming way back
when what passes for Fidonet leadership failed to ratify
that addendum to policy they said was forthcoming, defining
echomail, distribution systems, etc. and their relationsship to Fidonet.  Back
in our years of large numbers of sysops
most looked at that whole debate, and isntead of caring
about that lack they gave the whole thing a big yawn, and
when back to life in their own communities.  See the series
of articles I did for the other publication if you like.

Regards,
           Richard
---
 * Origin:  (1:116/901)