Text 26179, 185 rader
Skriven 2015-07-23 18:28:54 av Lee Lofaso (2:203/2)
  Kommentar till text 26170 av Bill McGarrity (18362.2fidonews)
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
 BM> 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
 BM> Coordinators,
 LL>> and
 BM>> ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is recognized
 BM> by
 LL>> the
 BM>> FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for dispute resolution on
 LL>> matters
 BM>> pertaining to echomail.  At some future date the echomail policy
 BM> document
 BM>> may
 BM>> be merged with this one....

 BM>> Why would an extra document be needed?

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

 BM> Or maybe the document is waste of time...??

At the time they wrote it, the authors did not think
it was a waste of time.  At least not their own time.

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

 LL>> Sometimes reading a document takes some comprehension skills -

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

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

 BM> I do not have a crystal ball to foretell the future.  One never knows from
 BM> one day to the next.

It was hot yesterday.  It is hot today.  It will be hot tomorrow.
I know this for a fact.  And I do not even need a crystal ball to
tell me that.

 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
 BM> straight to
 BM>> the shitter.

 LL>> What makes you think that?

 BM> Because you said one should be written which opens the debate why.

I said "perhaps" - and then "should".  Two qualifiers.  With no
definitive answer.

 BM> My contention is if it needs to be written, then something is missing from
 BM> P4 when it comes to echomail. Being "content" was never mentioned in 9.9,
 BM> one could presume this was the detail that's been missing.

Again, P4 includes a "catch-all" - the two cardinal rules.

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

 LL>> Thats a lot of ifs.  Which one is it?

 BM> Just one if...

A very big if.

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

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

 LL>> Ask yourself this one simple question -

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

 BM> I have 8-9 dedicated callers.

That is more than most sysops can claim in today's world.
Would have been an abysmal number years ago, but times have
changed ...

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

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

 BM> We all do... but the facts are it's not important who provides the content
 BM> in the realm of our discussion.

Who provides the content is every bit as important as what
that content is or might be.

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

 BM> Hey, that may indeed spark interest in flying again... the SUPER
upgrade...
 BM> 1st class to Golden class... you get to fly the plane as well as open bar!

I'll take the bus.  Or use my thumb.  They don't make
fly drives, you know.

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

 BM> Did I ever disagree with you on that?  The issue is, right now P4 does not
 BM> cover content... only proper transmission over the network. Not having an
 BM> echomail policy defining content maybe a good thing... afterall, free
 BM> speech.

Fidonet does cover content, just not in the way you are thinking.
Free speech is not an absolute, but a relative right, as there are
limits to everything.  That's right.  There are no absolutes.  Not
in this world, nor the next (if there is one).

Why else would the annoyed/annoying clauses be included in P4
if not for content?  That is the "catch-all".

--Lee

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