Tillbaka till svenska Fidonet
English   Information   Debug  
R20_SF   0/108
R20_SPRAK.ENGLISH   0/1
R20_SQUISH   107
R20_TEST   2
R20_WORST_OF_FIDONET   12
RAR   0/9
RA_MULTI   106
RA_UTIL   0/162
REGCON.EUR   0/2056
REGCON   0/13
SCIENCE   0/1206
SF   0/239
SHAREWARE_SUPPORT   0/5146
SHAREWRE   0/14
SIMPSONS   0/169
STATS_OLD1   0/2539.065
STATS_OLD2   0/2530
STATS_OLD3   0/2395.095
STATS_OLD4   0/1692.25
SURVIVOR   0/495
SYSOPS_CORNER   0/3
SYSOP   0/84
TAGLINES   0/112
TEAMOS2   0/4530
TECH   0/2617
TEST.444   0/105
TRAPDOOR   0/19
TREK   0/755
TUB   0/290
UFO   0/40
UNIX   0/1316
USA_EURLINK   0/102
USR_MODEMS   0/1
VATICAN   0/2740
VIETNAM_VETS   0/14
VIRUS   0/378
VIRUS_INFO   0/201
VISUAL_BASIC   0/473
WHITEHOUSE   0/5187
WIN2000   0/101
WIN32   0/30
WIN95   0/4282
WIN95_OLD1   0/70272
WINDOWS   0/1517
WWB_SYSOP   0/419
WWB_TECH   0/810
ZCC-PUBLIC   0/1
ZEC   4

 
4DOS   0/134
ABORTION   0/7
ALASKA_CHAT   0/506
ALLFIX_FILE   0/1313
ALLFIX_FILE_OLD1   0/7997
ALT_DOS   0/152
AMATEUR_RADIO   0/1039
AMIGASALE   0/14
AMIGA   0/331
AMIGA_INT   0/1
AMIGA_PROG   0/20
AMIGA_SYSOP   0/26
ANIME   0/15
ARGUS   0/924
ASCII_ART   0/340
ASIAN_LINK   0/651
ASTRONOMY   0/417
AUDIO   0/92
AUTOMOBILE_RACING   0/105
BABYLON5   0/17862
BAG   135
BATPOWER   0/361
BBBS.ENGLISH   0/382
BBSLAW   0/109
BBS_ADS   0/5290
BBS_INTERNET   0/507
BIBLE   0/3563
BINKD   0/1119
BINKLEY   0/215
BLUEWAVE   0/2173
CABLE_MODEMS   0/25
CBM   0/46
CDRECORD   0/66
CDROM   0/20
CLASSIC_COMPUTER   0/378
COMICS   0/15
CONSPRCY   0/899
COOKING   32001
COOKING_OLD1   0/24719
COOKING_OLD2   0/40862
COOKING_OLD3   0/37489
COOKING_OLD4   0/35496
COOKING_OLD5   9370
C_ECHO   0/189
C_PLUSPLUS   0/31
DIRTY_DOZEN   0/201
DOORGAMES   0/2048
DOS_INTERNET   0/196
duplikat   6002
ECHOLIST   0/18295
EC_SUPPORT   0/318
ELECTRONICS   0/359
ELEKTRONIK.GER   1534
ENET.LINGUISTIC   0/13
ENET.POLITICS   0/4
ENET.SOFT   0/11701
ENET.SYSOP   33876
ENET.TALKS   0/32
ENGLISH_TUTOR   0/2000
EVOLUTION   0/1335
FDECHO   0/217
FDN_ANNOUNCE   0/7068
FIDONEWS   23974
FIDONEWS_OLD1   0/49742
FIDONEWS_OLD2   0/35949
FIDONEWS_OLD3   0/30874
FIDONEWS_OLD4   0/37224
FIDO_SYSOP   12852
FIDO_UTIL   0/180
FILEFIND   0/209
FILEGATE   0/212
FILM   0/18
FNEWS_PUBLISH   4357
FN_SYSOP   41647
FN_SYSOP_OLD1   71952
FTP_FIDO   0/2
FTSC_PUBLIC   0/13596
FUNNY   0/4886
GENEALOGY.EUR   0/71
GET_INFO   105
GOLDED   0/408
HAM   0/16065
HOLYSMOKE   0/6791
HOT_SITES   0/1
HTMLEDIT   0/71
HUB203   466
HUB_100   264
HUB_400   39
HUMOR   0/29
IC   0/2851
INTERNET   0/424
INTERUSER   0/3
IP_CONNECT   719
JAMNNTPD   0/233
JAMTLAND   0/47
KATTY_KORNER   0/41
LAN   0/16
LINUX-USER   0/19
LINUXHELP   0/1155
LINUX   0/22070
LINUX_BBS   0/957
mail   18.68
mail_fore_ok   249
MENSA   0/341
MODERATOR   0/102
MONTE   0/992
MOSCOW_OKLAHOMA   0/1245
MUFFIN   0/783
MUSIC   0/321
N203_STAT   920
N203_SYSCHAT   313
NET203   321
NET204   69
NET_DEV   0/10
NORD.ADMIN   0/101
NORD.CHAT   0/2572
NORD.FIDONET   189
NORD.HARDWARE   0/28
NORD.KULTUR   0/114
NORD.PROG   0/32
NORD.SOFTWARE   0/88
NORD.TEKNIK   0/58
NORD   0/453
OCCULT_CHAT   0/93
OS2BBS   0/787
OS2DOSBBS   0/580
OS2HW   0/42
OS2INET   0/37
OS2LAN   0/134
OS2PROG   0/36
OS2REXX   0/113
OS2USER-L   207
OS2   0/4786
OSDEBATE   0/18996
PASCAL   0/490
PERL   0/457
PHP   0/45
POINTS   0/405
POLITICS   0/29554
POL_INC   0/14731
PSION   103
R20_ADMIN   1121
R20_AMATORRADIO   0/2
R20_BEST_OF_FIDONET   13
R20_CHAT   0/893
R20_DEPP   0/3
R20_DEV   399
R20_ECHO2   1379
R20_ECHOPRES   0/35
R20_ESTAT   0/719
R20_FIDONETPROG...
...RAM.MYPOINT
  0/2
R20_FIDONETPROGRAM   0/22
R20_FIDONET   0/248
R20_FILEFIND   0/24
R20_FILEFOUND   0/22
R20_HIFI   0/3
R20_INFO2   3167
R20_INTERNET   0/12940
R20_INTRESSE   0/60
R20_INTR_KOM   0/99
R20_KANDIDAT.CHAT   42
R20_KANDIDAT   28
R20_KOM_DEV   112
R20_KONTROLL   0/13224
R20_KORSET   0/18
R20_LOKALTRAFIK   0/24
R20_MODERATOR   0/1852
R20_NC   76
R20_NET200   245
R20_NETWORK.OTH...
...ERNETS
  0/13
R20_OPERATIVSYS...
...TEM.LINUX
  0/44
R20_PROGRAMVAROR   0/1
R20_REC2NEC   534
R20_SFOSM   0/340
Möte REGCON, 13 texter
 lista första sista föregående nästa
Text 10, 70 rader
Skriven 2005-07-08 17:49:07 av Thom LaCosta (1:261/1352.0)
      Kommentar till text 9 av Peter Knapper (3:772/1.0)
Ärende: Policy Update/Modification
==================================
Peter Knapper wrote in a message to Thom LaCosta:

 PK> Hi Thom,

 TL> Just wondering if it makes any sense to begin informal 
 TL> discussions of how the RCs might act if and when there 
 TL> is another proposed update to Policy?

 PK> I guess it all comes down to how much attention the proposed change
 PK> is able to attract. Based on the previous response, I tend to think
 PK> that GOOD RC communciation is probably the only way things might
 PK> start to move. I doubt that sufficient RC's monitor this or any
 PK> other Echo to guarantee enough coverage, so I have another devious
 PK> plot for this.........;-).

You're probably correct in the assumption that sufficient RCs don't montitor
this echo.....I think one thing we can do is attempt to gain their
participation before a proposal surfaces.


 TL> If a member of my 13 submits a proposed change, should 
 TL> I netmail it to the other RCs, announce it here or in 
 TL> another echo, or some combination of all these?

 PK> My own thoughts suggest that the main failure of combined RC
 PK> reaction from last time was possibly caused by the major issue of
 PK> comunication, and by that I simply mean the language barrier. 

Likely a correct assumption.

 PK> So... one possible method might be -
 PK>   1. A complete NEW version of Policy is prepared by those
 PK> requesting a change.   2. Once agreed, that NEW document is then
 PK> sent to an RC who is willing to run with the proposal and act as
 PK> the RC "contact point". The document is LOCKED at that point to
 PK> avoid confusion.

That makes sense....but that group of submitters might be urged NOT to shop the
proposal around, else multiple RCs might attempt to move it forward.


 PK>   3. The nominated RC then sends the document TO EACH ZC, along
 PK> with a request that the ZC's put it to each ZC's group of RC's,
 PK> along with a Target RC Vote Date that the documet be put to the
 PK> *C's for the final vote. This puts the communication issue in the
 PK> place that has the BEST chance of reaching the RC's, the ZC's
 PK> normally receive Nodelist segments from their RC's anyway, so
 PK> communication paths are likely to be in place for most of them.  
 PK> 4. The result from step 3 is that the document either goes forward,
 PK> or it does not.

The downside of that aprroach, as we saw the last time around, is that one ZC
might either choose to ignore or influence the action of his/her RCs.

 TL> Persoanlly, I think the RCs need to discuss how we 
 TL> might operate, rather than have someone else tell us 
 TL> how we should....and, as far as I know, there isn't a 
 TL> formalized procedure.

 PK> Well the above could be a start...........;-)

Perhaps another alternative would be to find at least one RC in each zone who
would be willing to act in the manner you've suggested for the ZC to act.  In
that way, the effort is one of the RCs...not any outside forces.

cya,
thom
http://www.tlchost.net/echolist/ 
--- GEcho 1.20/Pro
 * Origin: Home of The Other Robot (1:261/1352)