Editorial

ANNOUNCEMENTS

Henk Wolsink is on vacation for the month of June, and I've agreed to act as Editor Pro Tem until his return. This week's edition of FIDONEWS is smaller than usual as I've taken out two regular features: the listing of internet sites and the software listing. Both of these contain useful information, but I haven't seen an update for a while, so I'd only be printing what's already available in last week's edition. If I can get updates from the authors, these features will return to Fidonews.

In the meantime, I invite YOU to fill the missing space with your Fidonews articles. For the month of June, just send your articles netmail to Douglas Myers at 1:270/720 or email to doug@mdtnbbs.com. During the month of June, I'm running an "Editor Pro Tem Special." If you have something to say but find ARTSPEC.DOC daunting, just send your article in some kind of readable form and I'll do the formatting for publication.

Now for the actual editorial :)

WHY NOT EMPIRES?

I'm always fascinated by the use of the Internet to connect Fido. Todd Cochrane and Joe Jarad carried on a conversation recently in one of the echoes which set me to thinking about how we currently connect.

TC> Personally if I could get away with it net 345 would be central
TC> to Hawaii but would have about a 100 systems listed under it from
TC> all over the world makes routing easier not to mention basic
TC> setups.

JJ> Given that most of your downlinks are TCPIP downlinks, it would
JJ> make sense except that in order to insure that new technology
JJ> takes off in fidonet, spreading the wealth is important. :) One
JJ> such node came to me for a feed, and our RC wisely found a net
JJ> within his region that would grant him a fidonet IP only node.
JJ> If this technology were concentrated in one area it would not be
JJ> widely accepted and seen to the world as a Cochranet rather than
JJ> a new FTS protocol. Above all else, the newer technologies
JJ> should enhance communication within fidonet, and not be used to
JJ> develop a power base.

Why not allow development of a power base here? We're not talking about the building of an "evil empire." We're not talking about exalting someone and then forcing nodes to connect to him. This kind of "empire building" may just be the thing which reverses the much lamented nodelist shrinkage. We're talking about the voluntary association of sysops. Sysops would be free to join Todd's empire or Joe's empire... or form their own.

Fidonet sysops are already finding their net feeds wherever convenient. What a mess we make of things by requiring them to be listed according to a geographic format which no longer adequately reflects the organization of Fido. In a sense, we're perpetuating the old geographical "power bases" in denying nets to organize as they connect. Is it time to change our thinking?

If a bit of benign empire-building can make it easier for Fido to grow, then let the empires begin!