Editorial

As stated in the last editorial (issue 12), I advised the general Fido population of the existance of the ZCC-PUBLIC echo.

As of several days ago, the erstwhile moderator of the echo, Ward Dossche, Z2C, has announced that the echo is now "read only", despite his message on 16 Jan 1998 which indicated it to be an echo where posts could be made without allowing direct access to the ZCC echo.

An interesting claim made is that it is 'customary' in Zone 2 to not respond in such an echo if a mere sysop, but the FTSC-PUBLIC echo operates in a similar manner, and no one in Zone 2 I've observed follows such a 'custom'.

The interesting point is the interpretation of "openness".

The claim Ward makes is that he is cross-posting his own messages into ZCC-PUBLIC as a gesture that he is 'more open' than other ZC members...but we have no direct proof that he is posting *all* of these.

Likewise, the posting of messages of others, albeit as a quote, does tend to lend itself to manipulation of the actual context of the original message...One would only have to select particular quotes to fit one's responses, and whole new meanings could be made from the actual statements.

As well, does such "openness" really benefit FidoNet?

Do we wish to restrain people from discussing matters in private, in order to discover which way the sentiments go?

If we force open private echoes, is the forced opening of private netmail far behind?

Another reason to suspect someone who claims to be working in "your best interests"...once they start in your name, what does it take to stop them?

If the ZCC were acting against the best interests of FidoNet, I would expect the members to speak out against that, and go public over the actions, but to force it open for no other reason than a self-serving need to force issues...?

Sorry, I have trouble finding legitimacy and justification...your mileage may vary.

In other news, a press release from the Virtual Museum finds its way into the editor's mailbox; Ward sends in his doomsday countdown; and Doc Logger rides again.

Also, the debate over FTS-0001 comes up again, begging the question:

"Do we update the software protocols and eliminate non-DOS/non-OS/2 nodes, or do we let those running FTS-0001 only remain in Fido and hold us back from our hope and glory?"

Your comments, as always, are invited.

-zf-

### 30 ###