Editorial

Policy Debate
Doug Myers

Policy Debate continues to rage in the FN_SYSOP echo. Last week's editorial expressed the opinion that a formal change to Policy 4 is unlikely to result from any of the discussion currently taking place. However, Fidonet these days is run as much by the way sysops view the proper way they should interact as by any strict interpretation of policy... so it behooves us to examine some of the issues of the debate.

ISSUE: Policy 4.07 was never ratified by the sysops of Fidonet, and therefore isn't binding on them.

It's true that Policy 4.07 was never voted upon by the sysops of Fidonet, but rather by the Regional Coordinators. The fact that P4.07 granted Fidonet Coordinators governing authority which was previously considered to be in the hands of individual sysops leads some critics to cry "Foul!" They feel that the Coordinators were out of line to grant themselves broad powers and then attempt to legitimate it by voting only among themselves.

Though this editor respects the above considerations, what is overlooked is that P4.07 has been informally ratified by sysop assent. Power in Fidonet does reside in the hands of the sysops to the extent that they care to exercise it... but to the extent that they don't, power is exercised by individuals or groups. Simply put, if a group sets up rules and they are followed, then the rules are valid. P4.07 has stood unaltered for over ten years, and until the sysops reject it, it's valid... hence "informally ratified."

This "informal ratification" is, however, a two-edged sword. The Region 10 Coordinator discovered a few years back that the powers granted by Policy could be effectively rescinded by the sysops.

ISSUE: Sysop ratification of Policy isn't necessary.

It is pointed out that NONE of the policies prior to P4 were ratified by ANYONE, but rather handed down from "on high." Hence there is no precedent for sysop ratification.

This editor would argue that no policy would be successful without the assent of the sysops who comprise Fidonet. All policies were ratified to the extent that they were followed.

ISSUE: Much of the debate on "policy" is actually on areas not covered by policy. For example, echomail isn't covered by P4.07.

The above argument places too strict an interpretation on the term "policy." While P4.07 avoids any regulation of echomail, it's difficult to argue that there's no echomail policy. Anyone who has tried to start an echo realizes that there's a definite procedure to follow (a policy), though it's expressed by the mail movers rather than the Coordinators.

The practices which aren't defined by P4.07 are as much a part of Fidonet Policy as those formally stated.

ISSUE: Fidonet doesn't really need a Policy. A set of informal guidelines would serve the same purpose.

This is a mere bandying of words. Changing what we call policy doesn't alter the reality. A formal policy which no one follows isn't really policy at all, while "informal guidelines" which constrict are more binding than any stated policy.

CONCLUSION: Fidonet will always be governed by Policy, though it won't be P4.07 or even its successor should one ever be drafted and adopted. Policy is simply the way the sysops choose to interact... and that may or may not follow the formal policy. For example, sysops generally organize under a coordinator structure, pretty much as defined by formal policy as there are few practical alternatives. However, strict geographic organization as mandated by formal policy is increasingly ignored as sysops find increasing advantage to organize in more appropriate ways. Bob Satti's concession of automatic geographic exemptions has become policy more binding than P4.07.