Letters to the Editor

The Twit Responds
Ref: "The Tampering of the Elist"
Reply to Bob Moravsik by Douglas Myers

> Some of you may have read the drivel posted by Douglas Myers

Please note that I didn't need to resort, as you do, to calling individuals a "twit" or "tamperer" to present my arguement. Let the readers decide who is posting drivel here :)

> Most of his article describes the world through the eyes of a person
> to argues that reality is what he claims.
^-- who

Did you expect me to argue that reality is not what I claim?

> The real issue (and only issue) is: "Do the Elist keeper resolve
> disputes ?" ^-- Does

Actually, the elist keeper has been called upon to resolve several disputes lately. There was a dispute over listing multiple moderators, a dispute over allowing listings with spaces, a dispute over the way listings were permitted to expire, and others. The elist keeper was expected to resolve each one.

> What's LaCostaPol ? Its this secret set of rules that only Thom
> LaCosta knows.

Where's the secret? Thom has stated consistantly that he recognizes the moderator of an echo as the individual responsible for maintaining the elist entry. If it's a secret, it isn't very well kept.

> There are two sides to this issue.

> 1. Moderators "control" conferences and the elisting is their
> property. This is not supported by any Fidonet policy or the
> laws of any nation (Remember, Fidonet is international)

Nor has such been argued by me. In fact, I believe that moderators must ultimately serve the echo participants or they will either be driven from the echo or abandoned to the echo. What is actually at issue is the question of who speaks for the echo participants. The moderator is recognized by the NAB, FidoSpine, and Elist Keeper. Each of these bodies looks to the moderator field in the elisting to determine who this spokesman is. If you choose to call him "trustee" or "steward" or "owner" or whatever, that's fine... but he or she should be listed in the moderator field for the world to know.

> 2. Moderators serve the participants.

> If one takes the later then the elist password is seperate from the > moderator.

You make this assertion, but offer no arguement as to why the password should be denied the moderator. The password is little more than a housekey - if it's lost or stolen, then it's appropriate to change the locks.

> Without guidance from Satti (who has the power to extend Fidonet
> policy), LaCosta should not have compromised the Elist security.
> THAT IS THE ONLY ISSUE.

I'm not sure why Fidonet Policy should need extended here. Certainly it doesn't require an act of Congress if some apartment manager decides to change a lock after a tenant vacates... and the new tenant might even feel that security has been enhanced :)