Text 26169, 120 rader
Skriven 2015-07-23 01:19:33 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 26167 av Bill McGarrity (18359.2fidonews)
Ärende: Both Are Covered
========================
Hello Bill,

 LL>> This exchange sheds a bit of light on the subject -

 LL>>                   -=-=-=-=-=-

 ml>> janis has nothing to do with this other than clearly understanding
 ml>> what policy says and dealing with complaints when they arrive in
 ml>> her inbox...

 DD>> Is that the bit where echomail related complaints must be treated
 DD>> the same as netmail related ones?

 LL>> When it comes to routing/transmisson, then yes.

 LL>>                    -=-=-=-=-=-

 LL>> Both netmail and echomail are covered, in every aspect, whether
 LL>> routing/transmission or content.  There may be differences in how
 LL>> it is handled, but that is a different issue.  The policy document
 LL>> was written in 1989, and some changes in technology have taken
 LL>> place since then.  This also should be kept mind.  But policy does
 LL>> cover everything, even if limited in some respects in certain
 LL>> areas.

 BM> Then answer me this, IF the existing P4 does cover everything, then why
 BM> would
 BM> the authors add this...

 BM> "In recognition of this, an echomail policy which extends (and does
 BM> not contradict) general Policy, maintained by the Echomail Coordinators,
and
 BM> ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is recognized by
the
 BM> FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for dispute resolution on
matters
 BM> pertaining to echomail.  At some future date the echomail policy document
 BM> may
 BM> be merged with this one....

 BM> Why would an extra document be needed?

Contingency plan.  In case of fire, break glass.
That sort of thing.  But that is not going to happen,
because the powers-that-be, at least in Zone 1, want
to keep it that way, as the status quo suits them
just fine.

But let's look at the above section you quoted.
After all, you did ask a question.  A most hypothetical
question, given the key word "IF", but that's okay.
I like hypotheticals.

Sometimes reading a document takes some comprehension skills -

At some future date (which nobody knows)
the echomail policy document (which does not exist)
may be merged (or may not)
with this one (P4)

I do not foresee any new policy documents being written,
passed and ratified anytime soon.  Do you?

 LL>> That is what I get from reading P4 and following this thread.
 LL>> You and others have made some valid points, and I do not want to
 LL>> diminish anything anybody has said or contributed.

 LL>> Perhaps an echomail-specific document should be written, passed
 LL>> and ratified.  Is one needed?  My answer would be "Yes" - if there
 LL>> were more participants or if fidonet was a growing network.  But
 LL>> as it is now, it may be better to do with what exists today.

 BM> Lee, your statement above just took your arguemnt and sent it straight to
 BM> the shitter.

What makes you think that?

 BM> If indeed an echomail-specific document is needed then certain
 BM> aspects of P4 don't cover echomail and being nothing mentions content in
 BM> 9.9, that's one of the areas that need to be deifined...

Thats a lot of ifs.  Which one is it?

I am not being silly.  P4 was written, passed and ratified
in 1989 by sysops who were part of the network at that time.
Things change.  People move on.  Technology changes.  Issues
that were considered important then are no longer considered
important today.  Other non-issues then are now top issues
today.

But the most important difference between then and
now is the number of non-sysop participants.  Back then
non-sysop participants predominated the world of fidonet.
Today, almost all the participants in fidonet are sysops.

Ask yourself this one simple question -

How many non-sysop participants are using your board to
send/receive messages?  Is your board even open for non-sysops
to do that?

Oops.  That was two questions.  I never was good in math.

You say content does not matter.
Who do you think provides the content?
And you wonder why Fidonet is dyihg.

An airline is not going to allow a pilot to fly a passenger
airplane loaded with no passengers, regardless of how many
destinations that airplane can have.  The idea is nonsensical.

Fidonet is about communication.  People communicating with
other people.  Just as airplanes do not fly themselves, neither
does fidonet.  It takes people to communicate.  And what do
people communicate?  Content.

--Lee

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
 * Origin: news://felten.yi.org (2:203/2)