Articles

• Response to Editorial Response
• Response to Doc Logger
• North American Backbone Echo Changes [May-Jun]
• The Elist "Battle"
• "Building a Better Fidonews"
• Valid reason for new Net shot down in flames

Response to Editorial Response
by Bob Kohl, 1:102/861

> =====================
> LETTERS TO THE EDITOR
> =====================

> RESPONSE TO EDITORIAL IN FIDONEWS DATED 22 JUNE 1998

> By Ben Hamilton, FidoNet 1:124/7008

> This letter is in response to the editorial that was included in
> the FidoNews issue on June 22, 1998.

> In response to the editor's opinion that the RECs have posted the
> results of the no-confidence vote, then refused to reveal the
> particulars, I can only say this: The ZEC duties, as written by
> Bob Kohl, approved by the RECs, and then recognized by the ZC,
> state the "charges" quite clearly.

First point, the ZEC duties were written with input not only from the RECs, but from the sysops of Z1 themselves. There was no single author to the list.

More to the point is some of the RECs convenient use of the list selectively without "remembering" that the list also notes the use of an interim ZEC.

> The RECC charges that the ZEC is inactive, ineffective in his job,
> and is not taking care of his responsibilities.

Particularly true, I was indeed busy with personal business as happens to us all from time to time. On the other hand not competely true since Bob Satti had noted to me early on that Adrian was going to leave Fidonet. When I was elected, I started sending out netmail looking for a replacement for the Elist keeper. In the end, there were two individuals that were working on a replacement for the Elist: Thom (the appointed replacement Elist keeper), and Marshall Presnell. Marshall is a professional software engineer and has been for years. Marshall was also a Fidonet sysop for many many years. He offered to help and, as Thom was, in the process of building an Elist replacement. As things progressed, I continued to give feedback on the issue to the ZC in an impartial manner as I felt I was expected to.

In the end, Thom was selected by Bob, and my congratulations or condolences as the case maybe.

I did find it interesting that some of the RECs "jumped" on the bandwagon after I noted that there were two projects in the works in national echo areas.

> As I must continually remind you because the editor keeps asking,
> Kohl's first act after winning the ZEC election was to ask the RECC
> how he should go about removing an NEC from office. He did remove
> the NEC.

Wrong, as noted both in the REC echo and in other echos the question was one that was brought to me by the *C side and possibly looking for an alternative to the normal means of an RC dealing with the issue.

There is nothing wrong with looking for an alternative means to deal with an issue except of course when it's turned around to make it look like there's political motivation involved. According to Ben, there's a deep dark implication at any question that might lead to evolution in the way things are done to keep an issue on the *EC side instead of involving a *C.

> He soon removed an NC.

I'd like everyone to remember Ben's statement that what goes on in Reg 10 is none of his business. Sounded good at the time, didn't it?

> His REC quit, saying that he could no longer stand working with
> Kohl.

Ben's memory of the time line is a bit shakey. The REC quit before any action about this issue took place.

> He disclosed some in-transit netmail.

Ben also likes to paint with a very broad brush. There were two complaints brought up. One was dismissed, the other was explained and apologized for. Someone sent me netmail and I cc'ed Bob Satti when I responded. While technically it is disclosing in-transit mail, it isn't to the degree that Ben would like to make it out to be since neither Bob Satti or myself would be inclined to run around discussing the nature of that netmail. Bob was cc'ed since I did note to the sender that I would no longer route her mail.

> Are these the actions of a active, effective, responsible ZEC? Can
> you honestly say "yes" in good conscience?

Can Ben accurately make some of these statements in good conscience? Moreover, is this the same Ben Hamilton that suggested to a sysop that he should change his node number to poll someone? Using an unissued nodenumber? Ben should spend a moment reading P4.

> and how. Please be specific. And if a sysop-level vote is so
> great, why was the recent R10C election only an NC-level vote?

Ah yes, once again Ben should be reminded of his extremely short and yet convenient memory when it comes to his own statements. Ben forgets that he stated that the affairs of Reg 10 were none of his business in the last issue of the snooze.

It should also be noted that we have another REC in a national echo condoning packet ramming to an echo without permission of the moderator.

I find it interesting that two of the REC's are now suggesting behavior that is generally frowned upon or considered illegal per P4.

Response to Doc Logger
by Bob Kohl, 1:102/861

> In more Kohl news, I see that Kohl has suggested to Ruth
> Argust that she is being excessively annoying by repeating
> the true story about Kohl's pathetic attempts to get free
> boarding for his horse. Our prayers and our edible underwear
> should go out to Kohl in his hours of confusion.

> Regards,
> Doc Logger,
> Far Eastern Veteran,
> Furlang Island, South Pacific

In the course of "trial by public opinion, hearsay and innuendo", I find it interesting that good old Doc Logger has never bothered to take the time to confirm any of the information that he continues to process in his little diatribes.

It reminds me of the old days when we had such prominent gossips like Hedda Hopper, Walter Winchell, etc.

Given Doc's use of such gossip without any regard to fact or fiction, I formally suggest that the editor make Doc the official "gossip Queen" of Fidonews. It would certainly fit his writing style and the "old hen" mentality that he subscribes to so well.

North American Backbone
Echo Changes [May-Jun]
by Lisa Gronke, 1:105/9 lisa@psg.com

Summary of backbone & quasi-backbone echo changes during May & Jun.

Brought to you courtesy of (unix) diff.

diff (backbone.na + backbone.no) 03-May-98 05-Jul-98 [edited].

Echotag name changes

< QEDIT

SemWare Support for TSE editors [old name]

> SEMWARE

SemWare Support for TSE editors [new name]

Added to the backbone

> ANYTHING_GOES

Open, spirited and friendly discussions

> EDUCATOR

Discussion for Educators

> ELIST

ELIST Conference

> LUNATICS

Lunatic Fringe

> METALSMITH

Discussion of all forms of metalworking.

> RTTY

Amateur and Commercial Radio-Teletype

> SYSOPS_CORNER

SysOps Corner is a SysOps Only Echo!

> TRADEWARS

Conference for Discussion of the Game Tradewars

Removed from the backbone or quasi-backbone

< BB-CARDS

(low traffic since 4/1/98)

< BEACH_BOYS

(low traffic since 1/1/98)

< BEAD-JEWEL

(low traffic since 1/1/98)

< BT-XE

(low traffic since 4/1/98)

< CAROLINA_GEN

(low traffic since 3/1/98)

< CDOOR

(low traffic since 1/1/98)

< CHESS_TOURNEY

International Echo for Chess Playing

< CHIPSMAG

Chips 'n' Bits Magazine Echo

< CONSCIOUSNESS

(low traffic since 12/1/97)

< DOG_FANCIERS

(low traffic since 2/1/98)

< ESPRIT

Esprit - New Age Thinking & Action

< FARMING

(low traffic since 3/1/98)

< GAYTEEN

(low traffic since 4/1/98)

< ICEUTILS

(low traffic since 12/1/97)

< IPMAILER

(low traffic since 12/1/97)

< IRC_SCRIPTS

(low traffic since 4/1/98)

< LOTUS

(low traffic since 1/1/98)

< MILLENNIUM

(low traffic since 12/1/97)

< NONSPORT_CARDS

(low traffic since 12/1/97)

< POOH

(low traffic since 12/1/97)

< SAILING

(low traffic since 4/1/98)

< SERVERS

(low traffic since 1/1/98)

< SE_GENEALOGY

South Eastern US Genealogy Conference

< SINGLE_DADS

(low traffic since 1/1/98)

< SPITFIRE_CHAT

Global Spitfire BBS Chat Echo

< TENN_GEN

Tennessee Genealogy

< {COMMO}

(low traffic since 1/1/98)

o There are 633 echos in backbone.na [05-Jul-98] (down 29)

o There are 100 echos in backbone.no [05-Jul-98] (up 10)

o for a total of 733 backbone & quasi-backbone echos (down 19)

What's the problem now?
by Gary Gilmore, 1:2410/400

I was rather disappointed in the editorial written by Zorch in the last Fidonews regarding the Elist. Forgive me, but I need to quote in order to state my views on the matter.

>In other news, the battle to wrest control of the EchoMail Listing

Why is this a battle? The RECC -and- the Z1EC have done nothing but battle with each other over almost anything said, but meanwhile OUR echolist was going away. Too busy peeing in each others sandboxes, the Elist did finally disappear, when (thankfully) Thom Lacosta stepped up and said he not only had software to handle the job, but was willing (silly fool) to DO the job.

The RECC/Z1EC were finally distracted from their "did too!/did not!" petty bickering long enough for someone to do something, anything about the situation. Thank God!

Maybe this is a beginning where the REC/ZEC will start working again, rather than spending all their time fighting. I honestly hope so. If not, then perhaps we need to replace the whole damn lot of RECs and Z1EC, and replace them with people that give a damn about Fidonet first, and not their own petty desires and disagreements. (Now there's a thought!) They are ALL guilty for the lack of movement, no matter what they (all sides) want us to believe.

>has now moved into high gear, with the RECC all but demanding that
>the Z1C choose a particular system.

I saw the original letter to Bob Satti regarding this. It did not look like a "demand" to me, but rather a recommendation. However, I know of only ONE REC (R11's) that bothered to get the input of his region BEFORE jumping in and saying "Yea" to this movement. (Yes, I asked friends in other Regions about it.) THAT should be the problem, not the decision itself. (Those in other regions should wonder if their REC is acting autonomously, and not getting YOUR input on matters that effect each and every node in their region.)

>Odd how this came out immediately after the existence of other
>ELIST systems was announced in the FidoNews.

What announcement? It must have been made in Portuguese, since -I- never saw it. I'm one of hundreds of echo moderators, and no one bothered to ask MY input, no one bothered to tell/ask ME anything. I think most other moderators are in the same boat. It would be nice when decisions affecting OUR echos were at least run past US once in a while. It's pretty easy to find us, since almost all moderators -are- listed in the nodelist. (And netmail -would- be the way, since not all of us want to read the fight-filled "fidonet operations" type echos... we have real lives.)

Instead, our echos are treated like the kids in a bitter divorce, with the parents (the RECs, the ZEC, and the "backbone providers") all pulling at us as a weapon against the other side. I don't want to speak for all moderators, but I think most of us are pretty sick of it. Grow up, boys and girls.

>One would think that a more prudent RECC would look at all of the
>possibile systems before settling on one...

Prudent? How long should we wait for a replacement to the Elist?

How long would we wait if the Nodelist was suddenly gone, due to someone being childish and saying "it's MY program, and you can't have it, nyah nyah!"? (And yes, I think it was childish of Adrian to "take his ball and go home".) About 10 seconds is how long we'd wait. Echomail is THE most important force in Fidonet, IMHO. (And I completely disagree with Bob Satti's old decision that "echomail is not Fidonet". Yes it is Bob, and that decision is what opened the can of worms... thanks.) Take away the Echomail from your system for a month, then come back and tell me how many users you still have on your BBS, or if you don't have a BBS, tell me how exciting Fidonet is now that you don't have echomail.

Maybe it's time for the moderators and users of echomail to take back echomail from those that use it like a weapon against each other. It's OUR echomail, and we shouldn't allow ANYONE to use it as a political football, or send it's control over to other zones, or as a means to make money while imposing additional control on its distribution, moderation, or use.

>or is this just another jab at the ZEC, and the RECC refusal to work
>with him?

Jab, schmab. Perhaps, for a change, someone getting off the "attack metality" mode and doing something for a change. I think that the Z1EC -and- the RECC should have done something about this long ago, and done it together. (How many months have we all known the Elist was going away? Two? More?) All parties are guilty here. Not just Bob Kohl, not just any one REC, but all of them together. Stop the fighting and nitpicking, and do the damned jobs you were elected to. A truce should be declared, and a new beginning should start, one where they all try to do something for US, the sysops of Fidonet, rather than push political agendas and attack mentality (from BOTH sides).

Those involved also need to drop their silly "secret" mailing list to discuss ZEC/REC matters, and get it all back into the echos designed for such purposes. Nothing can be accomplished while those involved "hide out" in a mailing list away from the other side, and this shows a complete lack of desire to get a working relationship going again. Again, all sides (ZEC and REC) are acting childish in this whole matter. Both sides, shake hands, share your toys, and start worrying about Fidonet FIRST, please. We'll all be better off.

>More odd that the RECC would claim that the ZEC is supposedly to
>'moderate and present' to the RECC, but then turns around to lock
>the ZEC out of discussions, then claim that the ZEC is not doing
>his assigned duties.

I don't think the Z1EC has really done anything yet. This also means that he hasn't done anything wrong (in the title of ZEC), nor has he done anything to move forward. Likewise, I don't think the majority of RECC has done anything since the new ZEC took office except to attack and keep him from doing anything. Again, both sides are to blame here.

This constant tit-for-tat mentality is keeping all parties concerned from accomplishing anything for the good of Fidonet. That's a shame. You had someone that lost the ZEC election as a REC, leading a charge to attack Kohl. What is that? Sour grapes? Then you have Kohl on the attack against that. Do I think Bob Kohl has done a good job so far as Z1EC? No. He's done nothing that I can see. Have the RECs done their jobs? No again. Everyone seems to be too wrapped up in the whole "let's get <whomever>" frenzy. It's a no-win situation, and the sysops are the losers. Wake up, RECs and ZEC. Drop the childish fights, and work for US, not in your own interests.

>But then, these are also the same people who present in their
>erstwhile ultimatum to the Z1C that they wish the ELIST process to
>be above politics, while using the same proposed system as a
>political tool.

I disagree. I don't see Thom Lacosta being "political", (why, lately, does everything have to be political in Fidonet anymore?) nor do I see him "siding" with one or the other in the battles we've all had to endure around the various "Fidonet" echos. I think Thom's Elist works well, and every echo I moderate or co-moderate is listed on it. I strongly support Thom, and I think the numbers of moderators that have listed their echos with him speaks for them as well.

That's my take on the matter. Your views will probably differ, but all I can ask is that your respect mine as I will yours.

"Building a Better Fidonews"
by Andrea Santos, 1:135/382

Fidonet has long had a newletter for its membership, affectionately referred to as "The `Snooze" and, as irony would have it, the nickname has been a fairly apt description for most issues. How else to explain the abominably low readership levels attained by a publication which Fidonet Coordinators are required to make available to keep members informed? Coupled with regular doses of political conjecture, which the average sysop detests, it's little wonder one of the first electronic publications has been deemed boring and devoid of content which interests a larger audience.

In reviewing the usual content, format, latest, greatest and oldest software listings, page long PGP signatures, etc., the `Snooze reads like a repetitive semi-technical document. Perhaps it's time to break with a tradition that isn't working and get a community effort involved.

With that said, I've put together a preliminary outline for a "new and improved" Fidonews. Some of this is generally covered in ART.SPEC.

The outline is suggestive only. Whether further consideration would be given depends entirely on feedback provided by sysops directly to the Editor and the Editor's receptiveness to the suggestions.

NEWSLETTER OUTLINE

Suggested Positions

Editor (1)

Puts it all together, provides Editorial and includes general Letters/submissions to the Editor

Associate Editors: (6)

One from each Zone, compiles Zone news and submits to Editor, including election results for ZC and ZEC posts as they apply.

WEB Editor

Maintains list of those carrying newletter via Web sites/ftp, submits new additions to the Fido WebRing, or anything else related to Fidonet which appears on the Web, ie., the addition of new Net or Region Web sites, Fido Boards accessible via telnet, ftp. Contact point for all such submissions.

Artist

Designs a slick Fidonews icon for Fidonet related Web sites, so visitors can point, click and download the latest Fidonews, distributed weekly.

Suggested Contributors

FDN or SDS Coordinators

submit new file updates

BRE/InterBBS League Coordinators

submit info on new leagues, contests, championships

Regional Political Coordinators

(1 per region) submit news on Region and associated Net election or appointment results Also submits news on area conventions, computer shows of interest to sysops.

Authors

submit new product announcements, updates for freeware, shareware, demos

Echomail Coordinator

announces new backboned echos and those which have been removed from distribution.

Advertising Coordinator

posts on hardware/software deals for sysops.

FTA Chair or designated member of FTA committee

submit news on any new technical standards or updates

Grievance Coordinator

submits any "bones to pick" re: Policy, standards

Satirists

(2-3) submit "lighter side of fidonet" or other such amusing wit.

Other than "Editor," the rest of the positions wouldn't be "official" per se, nor are these suggestions all-inclusive. What we do need is Fidonet, the Community, to make it happen, and this outline serves to provide basic organization, which is presently lacking. Hopefully, the end result will be regular involvement in producing a weekly publication that sysops will WANT to read and find meaningful.

ANDREA SANTOS
asantos@santronics.com
http://www.santronics.com

Why???
by Jayson Taylor 1:120/107-mechanic@netquest.com

In these times of FidoNet seemingly dying in North America, one would think that the creation of a new net would be a good thing, right? Well, the powers that be seem to think differently. They would rather hagle over false boundry lines.

I am not looking to "grind my axe" here, I am just trying to get the word out about this, and hopefully get some feedback on it. Here is the complete story of my strugle to create a new net.

I live in Pontiac, Michigan in the USA. I wanted to hook my BBS into FidoNet because I truely enjoy exchanging messages with others around the world.

Much to my dismay, there were no local hubs in my area of North Oakland County, Michigan. After talking to several other SysOps in my area, we thought it would be a good idea to put in a requisition for a new net number.

So, after reading the all mighty Policy 4, section 2.4, I went ahead and created a proposed node list and did research on our closest net, net 120. Net 120's published boundries cover only Southern Oakland and parts of Macomb County. Not one single hub in Net 120 is a local call from my area, so I figured there would be no conflicts with them.

I then sent all of the proposed information to the RC for our region, just like Policy 4 states I am to do. He replies to me that he can't do anything because Net 120 is supposed to have control in the proposed area.

I stated to him that this is ridiculous, because not one single hub in Net 120 is a local call for any of the SysOps in my area wanting to join FidoNet. I explained that this defies all logic in that it would never be free to exchange Netmail. Echomail is not much of a concern becuase we could get it via FTP if we have to.

After typing until I was blue in the fingers, I have gotten nowhere. This is clearly wrong, and I turned to FidoNews to get the word out. I hope some of you reading this can understand my frustration, and give me some feedback on what would be a good next move for us.

Thank you for reading, and I hope to hear from you soon.

Jayson Taylor