Guest Editorial

Almost A New Beginning!
by: V.H.(Clay) Tannacore

On June the 5th, 1989, "A New Beginning" should have begun. It didn't! Why? What went wrong? Why didn't this "New Beginning" resolve the dilemma it was designed to? Last, but not least, Why hasn't there been a New, New Beginning? Some of these answers may never be resolved. Some are discussed by members of the origination in question. Some . . . Well, no one wants to address them, leastwise not in any open forum. Especially, not where the dreaded "C-Monsters" could overhear them.

What am I babbling about? Come on folks, you know! FidoNet and The Policy 4 Document. Who are the "C-Monsters?" None other then those big, bad Regional Coordinators, Network Coordinators, Zone Coordinators, and assuredly that (now missing) International Coordinator. Those who inhabit the upper echelons of FidoNet. The same "C" structure that for reasons only familiar to themselves, keep this prehistoric epitaph alive, and in force. This opprobrious document that system operators (SysOps) around the world are told to operate by. This uncomplicated/complicated instrument with its "guidance" pertaining to the operation of FidoNet, and all FidoNets subordinate followers. This same instrument which leaves relatively everything up for grabs, with one exception. The one exclusion being how the "C" structure (aka-C-Monsters) is; 1) appointed 2) elected 3) to perform their duties 4) to delegate authority 5) to (attempt) operate his/her Net, Region, Zone etc. etc. The "guidance" given in the Policy 4 document to individual Network Coordinators, Regional Coordinators, and Zone Coordinators, with very few exceptions is so utterly vague and inadequate it may as well be nonexistent. But I'm getting a little ahead of myself, here. Allow me to continue with (my opinion of) what is wrong with the present day FidoNet policies and operations.

Continuing right along, and in the same otiose manner. Let us examine the duties of the Regional Coordinator as per the Policy 4 document. In Section 1.2.4 (Region and Regional Coordinators) of this superannuated document, there is a total of 102 words. The first 41 words explain what a Regional Coordinator is. The next 53 words (and I'm being generous here) detail (grimace) the duties of the Regional Coordinator(s). Following this VERY lengthy in depth job description are another 8 words. These words inform all that the RC is "appointed" by the Zone Coordinator. Now, according to Policy 4, Section 1.2.4, The Regional Coordinator has one (and only one) duty to perform, and that is, and I quote; "maintains the list of independent nodes in the region and accepts nodelists from the Network Coordinators in the region. These are compiled to create a regional nodelist, which is then sent to the Zone Coordinator." Unquote! WOW!! Doesn't that sound like a grueling job description to you? Of course we all know that what is described in the Policy 4 document is but a fraction of what an RC is expected to do, and on a daily basis, at that. Why then does not this (Policy 4) document explain just what is expected of the RC, and how this is to be accomplished? Sure, give as much leeway to the person as possible, but by all means "guide" him/her in accepted procedures so to avoid a multitude of different methods of operations from network to network. In one word "STANDARDIZE" FidoNet, so as to insure a harmonious environment.

As I have pointed out above. There are no real formal instructions to assist anyone in comprehending just what is expected of them, except to inform them that a nodelist must be compiled. HELLO!! I bet you didn't know it, but by far the greatest magnitude of the SysOps within the FidoNet organization already knew that... Perhaps back in 1988 and 1989 (when this hideous document was formulated) the composers of Policy 4 felt that the education level of brother members were substandard, or something. I don't know, personally. All I can remember of that time period is the contemptible power struggle that was prevalent within FidoNet. Not to say that the power hungry are not still a part of this great organization (FidoNet) but to some degree have been restrained in achievement of their goals. Which I consider a PLUS for this confederation of ours.

Now that you have endured all my maunder, and haven't as yet called for my lynching. I assume one of two things; 1) you may think I have something here, or 2) you are in the process of trying to contact "Doctor Jack" to see if he makes house calls in South Carolina. Rest easy, what Dr. Jack can't do. The Veterans Administration (VA) Medical Center (aka-Hospital) will. However, before that time arrives, or before some technical computer type figures out how to send a nuclear fission apparatus via NetMail. Let me pass on a few (of my) suggestions I have that may possibly be plausible ideas for the betterment of FidoNet, and everyone involved.

First, and foremost, we (meaning you SysOps, and members of FidoNet) need desperately to assemble a team of members, who can recast (rewrite) the Policy 4 Document, in order to bring it up to present day standards, taking into consideration the technology at our disposal.

Second, and almost as significant, clear cut directions and procedures must be established within the New Policy 4 (or whatever it is called) document. Guide lines must be set for Regional Coordinators(Network Coordinators are addressed in a forthcoming summary) in order for the orderly operation (day to day) of FidoNet in every area of the globe where FidoNet is active.

Third, (and here a lot of discretion must be employed) Regional Coordinators must be made aware that the users (without who FidoNet is doomed) must have a way of asserting his/her opinions, as well as having a way of voicing their grievances directly to the RC, without fear of retribution from a local Network Coordinator.

Fourth, (again discretion and even sophistication must be stressed) the Regional Coordinators must oversee (without over-overseeing)and supervise their Network Coordinators (bearing in mind the voluntary nature of the FidoNet NC) so that a well organized, and smooth flowing Net is the end result.

Fifth suggestion (and a pet peeve of mine) is for the Regional Coordinator(s) to adopt an intelligent formatting scheme for EchoMail messages. Presently no such system is in effect, and the EchoMail message bases are in total tumult, with very few exceptions. Text lines are quoted by the dozens, even quoted text is quoted by the (mis)user leaving a message that started out at 2Kb of text, with the robust size of a Shareware Program (just a tiny bit of misrepresentation, here) ready for use on a PC. Even the blank lines of text are being quoted adding to the size of the message. Why individual SysOps haven't taken steps to stop this misuse, I'll never know. This practice does nothing but cost money, time, and space, not to mention the offensive looking messages echoed over 300 or 400 different systems throughout the FidoNet areas.

Sixth (getting tired yet?) suggestion is a simple one. As every SysOp in FidoNet knows, The Internet has lured many, many users from their local bulletin boards. The Internet with all its modernistic lingo, with enticing graphics, E-Mail, and Faxing capability etc. etc. Its world wide (WEB) accessibility, its . . . Hey! . .wait on darn minute. Isn't this just what FidoNet was supposed to be? Isn't this just what FidoNet is??? Oh, maybe not all the goodies like graphics, and Faxing, etc, but still a great place to communicate, and for free(?).

Seventh, and last suggestion for this conclave, okay? The free assertion above isn't entirely accurate, anymore. There seems to be a growing fascination with Pay For Use bulletin boards. I suppose this is the SysOp way of entering into competition with The Internet. But, in reality all that is being accomplished is degradation of FidoNet along with the principles and ideals it was founded on. How can anyone expect a user to understand that he/she has to donate, help support, or become a member of a bulletin board, in order to read/write mail or upload/download a file. Gee, isn't this just what he/she has heard about The Internet? He/She was under the impression that a local bulletin board was there as a hobby and was free of service charges. He/She thought hobby was "something a person likes to do in his/her spare time," just like Mr. Webster explains it in his dictionary. I know administering to a bulletin board (BBS) isn't cheap, not by a long shot, but it is a hobby, and should be operated that way. I started running my first BBS, on an Atari 800, in 1978, so trust me when I say I know about operating costs first hand. It wasn't until 1984 that I got into the IBM and FidoNet business, and even then money was considered a collectors item, to me. Granted, after your initial costs, the rest was kind of inexpensive, unless you wanted a BIG 40Meg Hard Drive, with a price tag of $400-500.00. But at no time did I, or anyone else in the Net (with the exception of the then NC) ever even think about charging a user a fee. No one except the software pirates who kept copyrighted software available for download on their system, for their paying members. Hmmm! Could that be the reason so many systems operate on a Pay Per Use basis?

As promised, no more suggestions or criticisms. I'll let a sleeping (puppy) dog lie, for the time being. However, I hope what I have written will incite others to do the same. Voices have to be raised if anything is to be done, and rest assured, something has to be done. FidoNet is in danger of a slow death, unless suitable action is instituted, and extremely soon. The people who are really involved with FidoNet, and who genuinely care about its existence in the future will stand up and let their viewpoints be known. This has to be a combined effort if reconstruction is to take place.

If by chance this article is published in FidoNet and you find it creditable. I implore you to let the editor (Christopher Baker 1:18/14) know. Voice your own opinions and suggestions pertaining to the inadequacies of the Policy 4 Document. If you think making waves is frowned upon within the FidoNet structure, you have been misinformed. On the off chance your reflection is correct, then more then ever CHANGE is a necessity, and PDQ.