On 11-13-19 19:38, Terry Roati <=-
spoke to Ward Dossche about Re: IC and 3 symbols in m <=-

See the link below.

http://ambrosia60.dd-dns.de/archiv/pub/fidohist/fidonews/2004/fido2101. nws

I just looked at the P5 proposal from 2014...

There was a P5-proposal in 2014 ?

Yes -- take a look at that from 2004, not 2014.

As one of many who worked on that proposal, It was intentially kept to
only two issues. The first was to update the section on where the
fidonews editor resided. That had been tried before and got absolutely nowhere. The second issue was intended to give a better path for any
future revisions to be made. At least that proposal got to the stage of
an RC vote. It failed for lack of a quorum responding, although the
majority of those who responded were in favor of going to the next step
which would have been a vote by all *Cs.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:16:45, 14 Nov 2019
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Hello Dale,

On Nov 14, 2019 01:10am, Dale Shipp wrote to Terry Roati:

Yes -- take a look at that from 2004, not 2014.

As one of many who worked on that proposal, It was intentially kept to only two issues. The first was to update the section on where the fidonews editor resided. That had been tried before and got absolutely nowhere. The second issue was intended to give a better path for any future revisions to be made. At least that proposal got to the stage of an RC vote. It failed for lack of a quorum responding, although the majority of those who responded were in favor of going to the next step which would have been a vote by all *Cs.

Thanks for the update and information, it was proabably a brave proposal in 2004.

It's now 15 years later, it perhaps could be discussed again in a specific
echo and if there is enough support could be proposed again. Question is if there is anyone willing to take the lead.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Hello Terry,

On Thursday November 14 2019 22:18, you wrote to Dale Shipp:

Hello Dale,

On Nov 14, 2019 01:10am, Dale Shipp wrote to Terry Roati:

Yes -- take a look at that from 2004, not 2014.

It's now 15 years later, it perhaps could be discussed again in a
specific echo and if there is enough support could be proposed again. Question is if there is anyone willing to take the lead.

Not me. Just like Dale, I was one of the sysops involved in the attempt to update P4. I spend a lot of time and energy on it. The attempt failed because less than a handful of people sabotaged it. At least one of them is still around. Te experience of seeing it sabotaged was so frustrating that I definitely will not do it again. If you want to give it a try, by all means go ahead, but I am out. :(

* Origin: The File Bank BBS! tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

^^^^^^^^^^^^
One is enough...

Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Michiel,

... The attempt failed
because less than a handful of people sabotaged it. At least one of them
is still around...

... and in a position to sabotage again, minor this time but anyway.

After the sabotage I asked a sabotager "So Why did you do this?" and the reply was "Because I could!".

If you want to give it a try, by
all means go ahead, but I am out. :(

I think the attempt must be made to update something ... anything ,,, and get the update put-up for a vote.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

Hello Michiel,

On Nov 14, 2019 03:18pm, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Terry Roati:

MvdV> Not me. Just like Dale, I was one of the sysops involved in the
MvdV> attempt to update P4. I spend a lot of time and energy on it. The
MvdV> attempt failed because less than a handful of people sabotaged it. At
MvdV> least one of them is still around. Te experience of seeing it
MvdV> sabotaged was so frustrating that I definitely will not do it again.
MvdV> If you want to give it a try, by all means go ahead, but I am out. :(

Maybe this could be attempted again but it would need to wait till the New
Year as people are just too busy at this time.

I would need to look at the proposal again as on first reading the changes didn't make any real change.

I have been out of Fido the last 15+ years, a list of pros & cons for the proposal would be a good starting point to do a proper review.

* Origin: The File Bank BBS! tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

MvdV>
MvdV>
MvdV>
MvdV> ^^^^^^^^^^^^
MvdV> One is
MvdV> enough...

Thanks I will look at that and fix it.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

On 11-14-19 22:18, Terry Roati <=-
spoke to Dale Shipp about RE: Policy change <=-

Thanks for the update and information, it was proabably a brave
proposal in 2004.

It's now 15 years later, it perhaps could be discussed again in a
specific echo and if there is enough support could be proposed again. Question is if there is anyone willing to take the lead.

Hard to say -- I suspect that most of those who worked on it before
would just as soon not try that windmill again. I know that I would not
be interested.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)


... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 01:33:59, 15 Nov 2019
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Hi Dale,

On Nov 15, 2019 01:32am, Dale Shipp wrote to Terry Roati:

Hard to say -- I suspect that most of those who worked on it before
would just as soon not try that windmill again. I know that I would not be interested.

Ward mentioned it almost got there then, a lot has changed in 15 years so it may or may not get through, only way is to try and find out.

It must have been very frustrating for many who put a lot of time and effort
in that proposal to see it fail, but that's life.

Who lead this failed proposal in 2004, do you know?

I would like to see the logic behind the proposed changes.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Hello Terry,

On Friday November 15 2019 17:46, you wrote to Dale Shipp:

Who lead this failed proposal in 2004, do you know?

It was sort of a group effort. The name that I recall was Bob Short. He left Fidonet soon after. As did several others who were involved.

I would like to see the logic behind the proposed changes.

I am not someone who turns back on failures. When I am done with something or someone, I am done with him/her/it. I don't look back, I move on.

Sorry, as I said I am out.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Question is if there is anyone willing to take the lead.

Hard to say -- I suspect that most of those who worked on it before
would just as soon not try that windmill again. I know that I would not
be interested.

I see some names selling a lot of fried air when describing the amount of work they put in the previous attempt.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

Hi Michiel,

On Nov 15, 2019 09:11am, Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Terry Roati:

I would like to see the logic behind the proposed changes.

MvdV> I am not someone who turns back on failures. When I am done with
MvdV> something or someone, I am done with him/her/it. I don't look back, I
MvdV> move on.

Just like to see any notes regarding the old proposal (pros /cons) to see if any benefits, I will look the changes in the new year when I get more time.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Hi! Terry,

On 15 Nov 19 20:26, you wrote to Michiel Van Der Vlist:

Just like to see any notes regarding the old proposal (pros /cons) to
see if any benefits, I will look the changes in the new year when I
get more time.

I might have -some- notes. I can't recall the volume, though. Ask again when you need, as the virtual system(s) aren't on-line here at present.

Cheers,
Paul.

... SysOps just like to watch.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130515
* Origin: Quinn's Rock - Live from Paul's Xubuntu desktop! (3:640/1384)

Hello Terry,

On Friday November 15 2019 20:26, you wrote to me:

MvdV>> I am not someone who turns back on failures. When I am done
MvdV>> with something or someone, I am done with him/her/it. I don't
MvdV>> look back, I move on.

Just like to see any notes regarding the old proposal (pros /cons) to
see if any benefits, I will look the changes in the new year when I
get more time.

Sorry, any notes or messages from that era have not survived the big clean out associated with the transfer from my InterMail/Irex AMA system to my Binkp BSO system.

I do not want to spend any more time on it.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

"Terry Roati -> Michiel Van Der Vlist" <0@1321.640.3> wrote:

MvdV>> Not me. Just like Dale, I was one of the sysops involved in
MvdV>> the attempt to update P4. I spend a lot of time and energy on
MvdV>> it. The attempt failed because less than a handful of people
MvdV>> sabotaged it. At least one of them is still around. Te
MvdV>> experience of seeing it sabotaged was so frustrating that I
MvdV>> definitely will not do it again. If you want to give it a
MvdV>> try, by all means go ahead, but I am out. :(

Maybe this could be attempted again but it would need to wait till
the New Year as people are just too busy at this time.

I would need to look at the proposal again as on first reading the
changes didn't make any real change.

I have been out of Fido the last 15+ years, a list of pros & cons
for the proposal would be a good starting point to do a proper review.

Today Fidonet has around 1000 nodes. In the 90s a single region was often much bigger than that. A RC from the 90s had more nodes in their nodelist segment than todays IC. I think it roughly compares like this:

Today 1990s
========== ==========
Int. C Regional C
Zone C Net C
Regional C Point and User C (aka Node)
Network C Finger and Toe Coordinator

Today we have 200 coordinators. I don't read every echo, but it feels like there are more coordinators than active echomail participants in Fidonet. Is this organizational structure with the geographic regions, the centralization of power and insufficient democratic control still useful? (and was it ever useful?)

A new policy needs more radical change than the proposed P5. Political bullshit, abuse of power by some assholes and the very crude centralized methods of distributing the nodelist killed Fidonet. I joined Fidonet in 1993 when we had two parallel Fidonets in R24 (the restructured one sanctioned by the ZC2 and the so called Fido Classic). This is exactly the stuff that the P4 enabled. The creation of the P4 was one of the biggest mistakes in Fidonet. Maybe the biggest failure was to keep the P4 alive for 30 years without working on any solution for a decentralized nodelist distribution.

I wonder why other networks do work great without any policy? E.g. XMPP, ActivityPub, Matrix, Zot, SIP, Psyc, bittorrent, IPFS, ...

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Re: Policy change
By: Oli to Terry Roati on Fri Nov 15 2019 06:12 pm

Today we have 200 coordinators. I don't read every echo, but it feels like there are more coordinators than active echomail participants in Fidonet. Is this organizational structure with the geographic regions, the centralization of power and insufficient democratic control still useful?

I know other regions are collapsing geographical nets into an IP only network, and limiting geographical networks to specific needs. As dial-up nodes have rolled off the nodelist, I've migrated IP nodes out of geographic networks and it's worked out well.
--- SBBSecho 3.09-Win32
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

Hi Oli,

On Nov 15, 2019 06:11pm, Oli wrote to Terry Roati:

Today Fidonet has around 1000 nodes. In the 90s a single region was
often much bigger than that. A RC from the 90s had more nodes in their nodelist segment than todays IC. I think it roughly compares like this:

The internet was the death of Fidonet, instead of users spending time on a BBS reading echos, downloading files and playing games the users slowly moved to the internet so Fidonet lost it's user base and the expertise it had.

Most of the Users now are sysops.

Today 1990s
========== ==========
Int. C Regional C
Zone C Net C
Regional C Point and User C (aka Node)
Network C Finger and Toe Coordinator

Nothing changed with the structure, just a lot less sysops and users.

Today we have 200 coordinators. I don't read every echo, but it feels
like there are more coordinators than active echomail participants in Fidonet. Is this organizational structure with the geographic regions,
the centralization of power and insufficient democratic control still useful? (and was it ever useful?)

There is no power in Fidonet, P4 hasn't changed so it's the same as when I
left it 16 years ago.

A new policy needs more radical change than the proposed P5. Political bullshit, abuse of power by some assholes and the very crude centralized methods of distributing the nodelist killed Fidonet. I joined Fidonet in 1993 when we had two parallel Fidonets in R24 (the restructured one sanctioned by the ZC2 and the so called Fido Classic). This is exactly
the stuff that the P4 enabled. The creation of the P4 was one of the biggest mistakes in Fidonet. Maybe the biggest failure was to keep the
P4 alive for 30 years without working on any solution for a
decentralized nodelist distribution.

Everyone has an opinion, everyone thinks they know the solution, but no one does anything but talk about it. That is clear since the last attempt to
change anything was in 2004.

I wonder why other networks do work great without any policy? E.g. XMPP, ActivityPub, Matrix, Zot, SIP, Psyc, bittorrent, IPFS, ...

Most other networks are normally run by a one or a small number of sysops
which works well till the guy at the top goes then it collapses, as history
has shown. It is easy to criticize Fidonet but it managed to connect the whole world and 30,000+ sysops, no other net will ever get close to that.

Can things be improved, absolutely, remember that will require a consensus.


... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

On 11-15-19 13:22, Terry Roati <=-
spoke to Michiel Van Der Vlist about RE: Policy change <=-

I would need to look at the proposal again as on first reading the
changes didn't make any real change.

As I think I said to you, there were essentially two changes.

One was very minor. That was to change the wording and location of the Fidonews editor. That change by itself was proposed by Frank Vest after
he turned the reins over to Bj”rn. His proposal fell on deaf ears --
I was told that hardly any of the RCs responded.

The second set of changes was designed to alter what it takes to revise
or amend policy.

The idea as I saw it was to come up with a more workable method for
revision or amendment without attempting to address any of the potential
issues that face Fidonet as it moves into the 21st century.

The first step in the current policy for revision is that a majority of
the RCs tell the IC to consider a revision. After the group finally
agreed on revisions to submit for consideration, the IC polled the then
RCs asking for a vote as to whether to move forward or not. At the time
there were 54 RCs and a quorum would have been 28. In fact, only 24 RCs responded and hence the revision did not move forward to the next step.
Of those 24 who responded, the votes were 14 yes, 7 no, and 3 abstain.

The number of RCs is now less, and that may have an impact on any future attempt. If you think that it is worth it -- by all means go for it.

Dale Shipp
fido_261_1466 (at) verizon (dot) net
(1:261/1466)




... Shipwrecked on Hesperus in Columbia, Maryland. 02:34:06, 16 Nov 2019
___ Blue Wave/DOS v2.30

--- Maximus/NT 3.01
* Origin: Owl's Anchor (1:261/1466)

Dale,

The number of RCs is now less, and that may have an impact on any future attempt. If you think that it is worth it -- by all means go for it.

I am now in the process of figuring out how "live" the current listed RCs are ... this is more of a problem than you would imagine.

There were times when several candidates popped-up for RC-positions and there were fully fledged elections and whatever thus creating expectations. Now? Now we are happy when there's a single willing candidate, whether competent or not.

So the first step in a P4-revision process is trying to figure-out how many RCs can be revived from hibernation. If less than the quorum are "live" then we needn't even bother. And "live" means "having netmail contact, not just responding in an echo".

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

Hello Dale,

On Nov 16, 2019 02:20am, Dale Shipp wrote to Terry Roati:

there were 54 RCs and a quorum would have been 28. In fact, only 24 RCs responded and hence the revision did not move forward to the next step.
Of those 24 who responded, the votes were 14 yes, 7 no, and 3 abstain.

The number of RCs is now less, and that may have an impact on any future attempt. If you think that it is worth it -- by all means go for it.

Well if enough RCs couldn't be bothered back in 2004, one has to wonder if it would be any different now.

Thanks for the info, its appreciated.

One has to wonder how many RCs now are on remote control?



... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

"Terry Roati -> Oli" <0@1321.640.3> wrote:

The internet was the death of Fidonet, instead of users spending time
on a BBS reading echos, downloading files and playing games the users slowly moved to the internet so Fidonet lost it's user base and the expertise it had.

This is like saying other computers were the death of the Amiga. It was the organization and lack of innovation that killed it, same with Fidonet. And of course the toxic community only accelerated the decline.

There is no power in Fidonet, P4 hasn't changed so it's the same as
when I left it 16 years ago.

I'm not sure what you mean with "no power in Fidonet". Do you believe that Fidonet is a perfect anarchy and abuse of power never happened? I'm just reading some mails from 1993 about the coup in R24 - history tells a different story.

Why do you want to change P4 at all?

I wonder why other networks do work great without any policy?
E.g. XMPP, ActivityPub, Matrix, Zot, SIP, Psyc, bittorrent,
IPFS, ...

Most other networks are normally run by a one or a small number of
sysops which works well till the guy at the top goes then it
collapses, as history has shown. It is easy to criticize Fidonet but
it managed to connect the whole world and 30,000+ sysops, no other
net will ever get close to that.

It sounds like you are talking about FTN othernets ...

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

There is no power in Fidonet, P4 hasn't changed so it's the same as
when I left it 16 years ago.

I'm not sure what you mean with "no power in Fidonet". Do you believe
that Fidonet is a perfect anarchy and abuse of power never happened? I'm just reading some mails from 1993 about the coup in R24 - history tells a different story.

26 years ago ... very relevant ... of course. Nothing more recent?

You should read the mails when one Helmut Hullen (from your region, should you be nodelisted) sued the hell out of Fidonet in a court of law ... and lost.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

On 16 Nov 2019 at 10:34a, Terry Roati pondered and said...

The internet was the death of Fidonet, instead of users spending time on
a BBS reading echos, downloading files and playing games the users
slowly moved to the internet so Fidonet lost it's user base and the expertise it had.

While the rise of HTML and other protocols over TCP/IP helped to fuel the departure of some from FTN stuff I'd say 'the Internet' today is actually keeping FTN efforts alive. With the demise of POTs in a lot of the globe, running FTN over TCP/IP is about the only way to enjoy our hobby.

I wonder why other networks do work great without any policy? E.g.

XMP

ActivityPub, Matrix, Zot, SIP, Psyc, bittorrent, IPFS, ...

Most other networks are normally run by a one or a small number of sysops which works well till the guy at the top goes then it collapses, as history has shown. It is easy to criticize Fidonet but it managed to connect the whole world and 30,000+ sysops, no other net will ever get close to that.

Kudos to the folks who created the means to scale a FTN to 30,000 nodes.
You're point about single point dependency for othernets is not lost on me
also and a challenge for me personally to keep chipping away at. I have not read much of this thread. When it turns in to acrimony I tend to turn off. If
I am correct Oli is advocating for change and challenging the status quo (all good things IMHO for a reasoned discussion) and I heard mention of decentralization which I am also keen to explore in Z21.

Anywhoo... good morning from New Zealand where Sunday is fine and sunny.
Looks like your PXW stuff may be getting sorted :)

Best, Paul

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Windows/32)
* Origin: Agency BBS | Dunedin, New Zealand | agency.bbs.nz (3:770/100)

Hi Oli,

On Nov 16, 2019 05:45pm, Oli wrote to Terry Roati:

This is like saying other computers were the death of the Amiga. It was
the organization and lack of innovation that killed it, same with
Fidonet. And of course the toxic community only accelerated the decline.

I used to live in Manila and we had a large group of sysops and users who
would meet twice a year and many of us became close friends. Almost everyone moved on to other things on the internet because they only had so much time to spare and the internet became it. It was nothing to do with Fidonet, we had very good local echos with high traffic which slowly died due to lower traffic and online forums. Users got there files from Tucows etc rather than a BBS
etc.

I'm not sure what you mean with "no power in Fidonet". Do you believe
that Fidonet is a perfect anarchy and abuse of power never happened? I'm just reading some mails from 1993 about the coup in R24 - history tells
a different story.

I don't know the event, all I can say is shit happens and one must move on.

Why do you want to change P4 at all?

I never said I wanted to change P4, I asked about the attempted change in
2004. If there is a new proposal and I think it will help then I will
support it.

It sounds like you are talking about FTN othernets ...

Yes.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Hi Paul,

On Nov 17, 2019 09:21am, Paul Hayton wrote to Terry Roati:

While the rise of HTML and other protocols over TCP/IP helped to fuel
the departure of some from FTN stuff I'd say 'the Internet' today is actually keeping FTN efforts alive. With the demise of POTs in a lot of the globe, running FTN over TCP/IP is about the only way to enjoy our hobby.

Totally agree. A lot of the old sysops unfortunately don't have the time any more to run a system, some will come back to it like I did but hopefully some of the younger generation will join for the challenge.

Kudos to the folks who created the means to scale a FTN to 30,000 nodes. You're point about single point dependency for othernets is not lost on
me also and a challenge for me personally to keep chipping away at. I
have not read much of this thread. When it turns in to acrimony I tend
to turn off. If I am correct Oli is advocating for change and
challenging the status quo (all good things IMHO for a reasoned discussion) and I heard mention of decentralization which I am also
keen to explore in Z21.

Paul I enjoyed the othernets before and was a member of quite a few but like I said most have gone, doesn't mean I am against them or I wouldn't have joined FSXNET and annoyed you :)

There is no issue in changing things but at the moment and last number of
years it's all been talk. Sadly maybe some folks are intimidated to share
their ideas but until there is sensible ideas and then a proposal there can be no progress.

Anywhoo... good morning from New Zealand where Sunday is fine and sunny. Looks like your PXW stuff may be getting sorted :)

This morning the sun is shinning on PXW, netmail tests next. Worst part is the issue was not pinpointed.


... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Hi! Terry,

On 17 Nov 19 10:59, you wrote to Oli:

I never said I wanted to change P4, I asked about the attempted change
in 2004. If there is a new proposal and I think it will help then I
will support it.

I located a one-off backup to CD-ROM back in September 2005. From the CD I've isolated a message area in Squish format for the IC discussions, where the P4 change motions were fielded. It's unlikely that there might have been enough traffic since to maintenance the critical posts to the bit-bucket, so I'm hopeful.

No guarantees. I was toying with both JAM & Squish areas so I'm not sure the format was available during the subject debates, etc. The main text file is roughly 3Mb in size so there's something there. My next move is to formulate some wizardry in GoldEd to access the posts in that IC echo, in a VirtualBox XP system.

There's a "but first" job to do beforehand: Sundays are set aside for system-wide backups on two host PCs and four virtual systems. I'm already 3/4 through that process. However today I also have another Ubuntu 'update', probably also requiring a power-cycle... I hate it when they do that. So...

Before I start, I have to ask if you can use Squish-formatted areas directly. Can you read them?

Cheers,
Paul.

... Ed Vance: Tagline Thievery Criminal since 1994.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130515
* Origin: Quinn's Rock - Live from Paul's Xubuntu desktop! (3:640/1384)

On Sat, 16 Nov 2019 20:48:18 +0100
"Ward Dossche -> Oli" <0@854.292.2> wrote:

There is no power in Fidonet, P4 hasn't changed so it's the
same as when I left it 16 years ago.

I'm not sure what you mean with "no power in Fidonet". Do you
believe that Fidonet is a perfect anarchy and abuse of power never
happened? I'm just reading some mails from 1993 about the coup in
R24 - history tells a different story.

26 years ago ... very relevant ... of course. Nothing more recent?

I see, like the events that were enabled by the exact same policy we have today and supported by the ZC2 and IC (in 1993) are not relevant. As the event of an exploding nuclear power plant in 1986 was not relevant in 2011 and is totally irrelevant today. Or concentration camps that are a thing of the past and could never happen in a western country or in a country that produces our phones, computers and the hardware Fidonet is running on ... oh wait ...

I know Fidonet is pretty irrelevant in comparison to that. These are just some examples and I'm sure there are better ones. We shouldn't dismiss the past, because it's not unlikely the similar shit will happen again, especially if nothing had been done to prevent it.

You should read the mails when one Helmut Hullen (from your region,
should you be nodelisted) sued the hell out of Fidonet in a court of
law .. and lost.

And one paragraph later some story from the last millennium is relevant again ...

Why should I get a node number in R24 when I already have uplinks in R28 and Z3? Just because Fidonet used POTS in a time that is not "relevant" anymore and it still can get over it?

And now back to the conversation about sliced and salted animals and beverages that taste like horse piss.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Hi! Terry,

On 17 Nov 19 17:10, I wrote to you:

I located a one-off backup to CD-ROM back in September 2005. From the
CD I've isolated a message area in Squish format for the IC
discussions, where the P4 change motions were fielded. It's unlikely
that there might have been enough traffic since to maintenance the critical posts to the bit-bucket, so I'm hopeful.

I bombed on that snapshot. It has traffic from 17 October 2004 till just short of 12 months later. There's a lot of excited chit-chat... nonsense. Even an appearance by a Z3C. Nothing about a momentous gathering of *Cs. :(

Cheers,
Paul.

... I used to think I was indecisive, but now I'm not so sure.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130515
* Origin: Quinn's Rock - Live from Paul's Xubuntu desktop! (3:640/1384)

I know Fidonet is pretty irrelevant in comparison to that. These are just some examples and I'm sure there are better ones. We shouldn't dismiss
the past, because it's not unlikely the similar shit will happen again, especially if nothing had been done to prevent it.

You are 100% right. If only mankind could think on that global level.

And one paragraph later some story from the last millennium is relevant again ...

What's relevant for one is dissmissable for someone else. But that section of Fidohistory happened during one of your absences ... maybe it's something you haven't read-up on.

Why should I get a node number in R24 when I already have uplinks in R28
and Z3? Just because Fidonet used POTS in a time that is not "relevant" anymore and it still can get over it?

I would like you to get a nodenumber to see you on a different level than the troll.

And now back to the conversation about sliced and salted animals and beverages that taste like horse piss.

There are stories ...

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

Hi Paul,

On Nov 17, 2019 05:00pm, Paul Quinn wrote to Terry Roati:

Before I start, I have to ask if you can use Squish-formatted areas directly. Can you read them?

To be honest I am not sure. I have software that can open a mail packet and read the messages inside. Send me a packet as a test.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Hello Oli,

On Nov 17, 2019 10:50am, Oli wrote to Ward Dossche:

Why should I get a node number in R24 when I already have uplinks in R28 and Z3? Just because Fidonet used POTS in a time that is not "relevant" anymore and it still can get over it?

Fidonet was designed geographically so the normal procedure was to get a node number to your closest NC, if you couldn't get a node number from that NC you could ask that NC's RC for help and last choice go to the ZC.

Now that there are very POTS left it doesn't make any sense for that requirement but what difference does it make if you follow that procedure?

Once you have a node number you can get your feed where ever you want.

I beleive you already know the above very well so if you want to change things then go ahead and list your suggestions and how they can be implemented.

Saying something is outdated doesn't help even if it's true.

Just my opinion.


... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Hi Paul,

On Nov 17, 2019 08:03pm, Paul Quinn wrote to Terry Roati:

I bombed on that snapshot. It has traffic from 17 October 2004 till
just short of 12 months later. There's a lot of excited chit-chat... nonsense. Even an appearance by a Z3C. Nothing about a momentous gathering of *Cs. :(

Not a problem, it's in the past anyway.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

"Ward Dossche -> Oli" <0@854.292.2> wrote:

Why should I get a node number in R24 when I already have uplinks
in R28 and Z3? Just because Fidonet used POTS in a time that is
not "relevant" anymore and it still can get over it?

I would like you to get a nodenumber to see you on a different level
than the troll.

Maybe try to change your thought patterns. As I'm not convinced that the concept of troll is meaningful or helpful I really don't care, if you see me as a troll or not.

You replied, but avoided my answer my question ... again. If I did believe in trolls, I would wonder if the IC is one of them. Which would lead me to the conclusion that there the status in Fidonet (point, node, ..., IC) and trolling behavior are independent from each other. I also would find it remarkable that many people who call other people trolls don't recognize their own trolling behavior (Dunning–Kruger would come to mind). Then I would read articles such as "Internet trolls are usually men who are psychopaths and sadists" and "1 in 5 business leaders may have psychopathic tendencies", which could bring up the questions: how prevalent was psychopathy in Fidonet's "upper echelon" in the last 35 years?

Anyway, it's all bullshit. Not even scientist agree on how to measure trolling behavior, the causes of it and how to define it.


Constructing the cyber-troll: Psychopathy, sadism, and empathy
"Results showed that men were more likely than women to engage in trolling, and higher levels of trait psychopathy and sadism predicted trolling behaviour. Lower levels of affective empathy predicted perpetration of trolling, and trait psychopathy moderated the association between cognitive empathy and trolling. Results indicate that when high on trait psychopathy, trolls employ an empathic strategy of predicting and recognising the emotional suffering of their victims, while abstaining from the experience of these negative emotions. Thus, trolls appear to be master manipulators of both cyber-settings and their victims' emotions." [1]

vs.

Anyone Can Become a Troll: Causes of Trolling Behavior in Online Discussions "In online communities, antisocial behavior such as trolling disrupts constructive discussion. While prior work suggests that trolling behavior is confined to a vocal and antisocial minority, we demonstrate that ordinary people can engage in such behavior as well. We propose two primary trigger mechanisms: the individual's mood, and the surrounding context of a discussion (e.g., exposure to prior trolling behavior). Through an experiment simulating an online discussion, we find that both negative mood and seeing troll posts by others significantly increases the probability of a user trolling, and together double this probability. To support and extend these results, we study how these same mechanisms play out in the wild via a data-driven, longitudinal analysis of a large online news discussion community. This analysis reveals temporal mood effects, and explores long range patterns of repeated exposure to trolling. A predictive model of trolling behavior shows that mood and discussio
context together can explain trolling behavior better than an individual's history of trolling. These results combine to suggest that ordinary people can, under the right circumstances, behave like trolls." [2]


[1] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S0191886917304270
(use sci-hub.tw to get the full article)
[2] https://www.cs.cornell.edu/~cristian/Anyone_Can_Become_a_Troll.html

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Hi! Terry,

On 17 Nov 19 22:54, you wrote to me:

Nothing about a momentous gathering of *Cs. :(

Not a problem, it's in the past anyway.

It was really quite depressing. We have lost a lot of personalities over the last 15 years, due to their leaving by various means.

IAC, I still have another server to suss-out later today. That one ought to have text captures of highlights and maybe proposals. More later...

Cheers,
Paul.

... This tagline vibrates if you rub it the right way.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20130515
* Origin: Quinn's Rock - Live from Paul's Xubuntu desktop! (3:640/1384)

"Terry Roati -> Oli" <0@1321.640.3> wrote:

Why should I get a node number in R24 when I already have
uplinks in R28 and Z3? Just because Fidonet used POTS in a time
that is not "relevant" anymore and it still can get over it?

[...]

I beleive you already know the above very well so if you want to
change things then go ahead and list your suggestions and how they
can be implemented.

Saying something is outdated doesn't help even if it's true.

Are you trolling me? ;)

I was not the one who suggested I should get a node number. You already know that I think the P4 is crap and my proposal is to get rid of it. If you don't want to get rid of P4 there are obviously only two options for that specific issue: rewrite the P4 (start with 1.3.2) or ignore (parts of) the P4.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

On 18/11/2019 03:21, Oli -> Terry Roati wrote:

If you don't want to get rid of P4 there are obviously only two options

for

that specific issue: rewrite the P4 (start with 1.3.2)

or ignore (parts of) the P4.

I think most of us do that anyway.

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

or ignore (parts of) the P4.

I think most of us do that anyway.

P4 has evolved into a set of guidelines, not necessary rules, that make the thing turn. Some are adhered too, some are ignored.

Some can be "Oli-ed" to ... new word for the Fido-lexicon ...

To Oli: drop a section of P4.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

On 18/11/2019 07:14, Ward Dossche -> David Drummond wrote:

or ignore (parts of) the P4.

I think most of us do that anyway.

P4 has evolved into a set of guidelines, not necessary rules, that make the thing turn. Some are adhered too, some are ignored.

Some can be "Oli-ed" to ... new word for the Fido-lexicon ...

To Oli: drop a section of P4.

:)

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

Hi Oli,

On Nov 17, 2019 06:20pm, Oli wrote to Terry Roati:

Why should I get a node number in R24 when I already have

I was not the one who suggested I should get a node number. You already know that I think the P4 is crap and my proposal is to get rid of it. If you don't want to get rid of P4 there are obviously only two options for that specific issue: rewrite the P4 (start with 1.3.2) or ignore (parts
of) the P4.

But you did ask the question (sort of).

So what is holding you back in joining fidonet, surely not P4?

Saying P4 is crap and to get rid of it without something to replace it doesn't make sense. What is needed is a sensible proposal that will work and can be agreed with by the majority.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

On 18/11/2019 09:53, Terry Roati -> Oli wrote:

rewrite the P4 (start with 1.3.2) or ignore (parts of) the P4.

But you did ask the question (sort of).

So what is holding you back in joining fidonet, surely not P4?

Saying P4 is crap and to get rid of it without something to replace it

doesn't

make sense. What is needed is a sensible proposal that will work and can

be

agreed with by the majority.

Majority of listed nodes, or majority of those who care enough to express an opinion (by voting)?

The former is never going to happen.

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

Terry Roati wrote to Oli <=-

I was not the one who suggested I should get a node number. You already know that I think the P4 is crap and my proposal is to get rid of it. If you don't want to get rid of P4 there are obviously only two options for that specific issue: rewrite the P4 (start with 1.3.2) or ignore (parts
of) the P4.

But you did ask the question (sort of).

So what is holding you back in joining fidonet, surely not P4?

Saying P4 is crap and to get rid of it without something to
replace it doesn't make sense. What is needed is a sensible
proposal that will work and can be agreed with by the majority.

What business does someone who isn't a member of Fidonet have with
trying to force change on Fidonet policies?

I'd say he can be safely ignored.


... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Hi David,

On Nov 18, 2019 11:25am, David Drummond wrote to Terry Roati:

A question first, so with the FTSC election does it get an actual majority of nodelisted RC's to vote in all Fidonet zones?

Majority of listed nodes, or majority of those who care enough to
express an opinion (by voting)?

The former is never going to happen.

Does it really matter? If the majority of those who care enough to vote for a change and then the silent majority don't do anything to object, there vote would be an abstain and the change passed. If all of a sudden, the non voters come out of the woodwork then another vote could be held to settle the matter.

The only issue I see is the quorum, if the majority of *C's can't be bothered to vote then so be it, .

In most democratic elections where it is not compulsory to vote, the majority of the votes decide an election I beleive so why should Fidonet be different?



... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Does it really matter? If the majority of those who care enough to vote
for a change and then the silent majority don't do anything to object, there vote would be an abstain and the change passed. If all of a sudden, the non voters come out of the woodwork then another vote could be held
to settle the matter.

You just described Brexit here.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

On 18/11/2019 12:31, Terry Roati -> David Drummond wrote:

Majority of listed nodes, or majority of those who care enough to
express an opinion (by voting)?

The former is never going to happen.

Does it really matter? If the majority of those who care enough to vote

for a

change and then the silent majority don't do anything to object, there

vote

would be an abstain and the change passed. If all of a sudden, the non

voters

come out of the woodwork then another vote could be held to settle the matter.

I concur but ...

The only issue I see is the quorum, if the majority of *C's can't be

bothered

to vote then so be it, .

In most democratic elections where it is not compulsory to vote, the

majority

of the votes decide an election I beleive so why should Fidonet be different?

Isn't it written somewhere that things can only be changed by a majority vote of ALL?

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

On 18/11/2019 13:43, Dan Clough -> Terry Roati wrote:

Saying P4 is crap and to get rid of it without something to
replace it doesn't make sense. What is needed is a sensible
proposal that will work and can be agreed with by the majority.

What business does someone who isn't a member of Fidonet have with
trying to force change on Fidonet policies?

I wondered that too.

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

Hi Dan,

On Nov 17, 2019 09:49pm, Dan Clough wrote to Terry Roati:

What business does someone who isn't a member of Fidonet have with
trying to force change on Fidonet policies?

No one can force change in Fidonet, however does it really matter where the ideas and proposals come from?

If they make sense and are workable and better than what we have now why not consider them.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Hi david.

On Nov 18, 2019 04:58pm, David Drummond wrote to Terry Roati:

Isn't it written somewhere that things can only be changed by a
majority vote of ALL?

Policy 4

8.6 Decision of vote

A Policy amendment is considered in force if, at the end of the balloting period, it has received a majority of the votes cast. For example, if there were 350 eligible voters, 100 of which cast a vote, then at least 51 affirma- tive votes would be required to declare the amendment in force.

In the case of multiple policy changes which are considered on the same
ballot, a version must receive more than 50% of the votes cast to be consid- ered ratified. "Abstain" is a valid vote in this case, effectively being a vote for not changing the current policy as it simply increases the number of votes required to ratify the proposed change.

******************************

I interperate this based om the first paragraph, if the vote is on a new
policy it only requires a majority.



... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

"Terry Roati -> Oli" <0@1321.640.3> wrote:

Why should I get a node number in R24 when I already have

I was not the one who suggested I should get a node number. You
already know that I think the P4 is crap and my proposal is to
get rid of it. If you don't want to get rid of P4 there are
obviously only two options for that specific issue: rewrite the
P4 (start with 1.3.2) or ignore (parts of) the P4.

But you did ask the question (sort of).

So what is holding you back in joining fidonet, surely not P4?

I'm already a participant in Fidonet, I see no technical reason (at the moment) to change my address from *.47 to *.0.

The P4 is another reason I don't the see the advantages for getting a node number. Simple nodes (who are *Cs) couldn't vote for the approval or disapproval of the P4. Unsurprisingly a node defined by the P4 has basically no power. If I had a node number, I still couldn't vote for a new Policy.

So what's the point (of becoming a node)? People would find another aspect why I'm unworthy of having an opinion they could constantly bitch about.

From now on I'm just ignoring the usual point bullying or other comments about my status in Fidonet.

Saying P4 is crap and to get rid of it without something to replace
it doesn't make sense. What is needed is a sensible proposal that
will work and can be agreed with by the majority.

First step is to acknowledge that the P4 is crap. If that is not what the majority agrees on, than I'm not the right guy to work out a so called "sensible" proposal. It would be just a waste of time. Others here in Fidonet experienced that before and lost any motivation to work on it again or already left Fidonet.

I already wrote that most other communication networks don't have anything like the P4 and they still work. For some reason it was not possible to create smarter technology for distributing the nodelist, instead a hierarchical power structure was established that became self-sustaining (ZC appoints RCs, RCs elect ZC) with all the political and social implications and all the bullshit. I came to that conclusion only recently, but other knew this a long time ago. http://rxn.com/~net282/fidonet.bush.number.nine.txt

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Oli,

From now on I'm just ignoring the usual point bullying or other comments about my status in Fidonet.

You have no status in Fidonet.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

On Nov 18, 2019 12:10pm, Oli wrote to Terry Roati:

I'm already a participant in Fidonet, I see no technical reason (at the moment) to change my address from *.47 to *.0.

If your happy as point then I am happy for you.

The P4 is another reason I don't the see the advantages for getting a
node number. Simple nodes (who are *Cs) couldn't vote for the approval or disapproval of the P4. Unsurprisingly a node defined by the P4 has basically no power. If I had a node number, I still couldn't vote for a
new Policy.

P4 was written when there were a lot of nodes, the *Cs were the body to carry out various functions. Yes I am sure there were problem *Cs but I am certain most were decent and enjoying the hobby.

So what's the point (of becoming a node)? People would find another
aspect why I'm unworthy of having an opinion they could constantly bitch about.

We all have opinions, sometimes they are right sometime they are crap.

I already wrote that most other communication networks don't have
anything like the P4 and they still work. For some reason it was not possible to create smarter technology for distributing the nodelist, instead a hierarchical power structure was established that became self-sustaining (ZC appoints RCs, RCs elect ZC) with all the political
and social implications and all the bullshit. I came to that conclusion only recently, but other knew this a long time ago.

But they are almost all based on FTN technology and all depend on a few people who run those networks.

I have yet to see another net that I would say, gee Fidonet should be like
that because of reason a, b, c etc.

20 years ago there were a lot of popular other nets of which I was a member of quite a few, most or all of them have gone, I am just glad Fidonet didn't do the same.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Terry,

20 years ago there were a lot of popular other nets of which I was a
member of quite a few, most or all of them have gone, I am just glad Fidonet didn't do the same.

A lot of those networks had gateways into and out of Fidonet. They're ALL gone ... the gateways.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

Terry Roati wrote to Dan Clough <=-

What business does someone who isn't a member of Fidonet have with
trying to force change on Fidonet policies?

No one can force change in Fidonet, however does it really matter
where the ideas and proposals come from?

Yes. To me, at least.

If they make sense and are workable and better than what we have
now why not consider them.

For the same reasons that non-members don't get to decide how to
conduct business in virtually any other "club" or organization
that you could name.

If a person wants to provide input, or request changes, or
whatever, then they become a member first. That's how it works.



... Backup not found: (A)bort (R)etry (P)anic
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Oli wrote to Terry Roati <=-

So what is holding you back in joining fidonet, surely not P4?

I'm already a participant in Fidonet, I see no technical reason
(at the moment) to change my address from *.47 to *.0.

A point address is not in the Nodelist. You are not a nodelisted
Sysop.

So what's the point (of becoming a node)? People would find
another aspect why I'm unworthy of having an opinion they could
constantly bitch about.

A nodelisted sysop has a voice in these matters. A non-nodelisted
person does not. Simple.

From now on I'm just ignoring the usual point bullying or other
comments about my status in Fidonet.

If you are not a nodelisted Sysop, you *have* no status in
Fidonet. This really isn't that hard to understand. If you were
an electrician, but not in a union, would you have any say in that
union's policies/procedures?

I already wrote that most other communication networks don't have
anything like the P4 and they still work.

All other FTN networks ("othernets") that I am aware of have
published guidelines/rules. Not as extensive as Fido's, but still
there.

I suggest you stop trying to fight windmills. If you want to
effect some change in Fidonet, then join Fidonet and have at it.



... All the easy problems have been solved.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

On 18/11/2019 19:18, Terry Roati -> David Drummond wrote:

Isn't it written somewhere that things can only be changed by a
majority vote of ALL?

[...]

it has received a majority of the votes cast.

[...]

a version must receive more than 50% of the votes cast to be considered

ratified.
[...]

I interprate this based on the first paragraph, if the vote is on a new policy it only requires a majority.

a majority of voters.

I agree.

I felt that I had read somewhere, sometime in the past, that a quorum of nodelisted was required. I no longer recall where and cannot be bothered to look.

Now comes the question... what part/s of Policy *need* to be changed?

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

what part/s of Policy *need* to be changed?

1.3.1 FidoNews

<snip>

Contributions are submitted to node 1:1/1; a file describing the format to be used is available from 1:1/1 and many other systems.




..

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; sv-SE; rv:1.9.1.16) Gecko/20101125
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

what part/s of Policy *need* to be changed?

1.3.1 FidoNews

<snip>

Contributions are submitted to node 1:1/1; a file describing the format
to be used is available from 1:1/1 and many other systems.

The alternative being that Nick lists you as 1:1/1.

\%/@rd

--- D'Bridge 3.99
* Origin: Do not meddle in the affairs of wizards (2:292/854)

On 19/11/2019 08:57, 2:203/2 wrote:

what part/s of Policy *need* to be changed?

1.3.1 FidoNews

<snip>

Contributions are submitted to node 1:1/1; a file describing the format
to be used is available from 1:1/1 and many other systems.

Yes, there is that. But other than the Fidonews submission address, what have the Romans ever given us ... er, what else in Policy *NEEDS* to be changed?

Please note, I am not a worshipping devotee of Policy 4.anything, I see it as merely a guidance document.

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

On Nov 18, 2019 01:35pm, Dan Clough wrote to Terry Roati:

For the same reasons that non-members don't get to decide how to
conduct business in virtually any other "club" or organization
that you could name.

If a person wants to provide input, or request changes, or
whatever, then they become a member first. That's how it works.

Every sensible organization / club gets outside advice, whether they use it is up to the membership.

So your saying if a user (not a sysop) made a really good suggestion you would automatically knock it back just because he is not a sysop?


... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

On Nov 19, 2019 06:33am, David Drummond wrote to Terry Roati:

Now comes the question... what part/s of Policy *need* to be changed?

Ask me that next year.

... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

"Dan Clough -> Oli" <0@115.123.1> wrote:

I'm already a participant in Fidonet, I see no technical reason
(at the moment) to change my address from *.47 to *.0.

A point address is not in the Nodelist. You are not a nodelisted
Sysop.

Please spare me the explanations, I do know how a FTN works. I'm in the pointlist, which is technical nearly identical to a nodelist. Why is it so hard to understand that there is no _technical_ reason for _me_ to get a node number?

I already wrote that most other communication networks don't
have anything like the P4 and they still work.

All other FTN networks ("othernets") that I am aware of have
published guidelines/rules. Not as extensive as Fido's, but still
there.

I never talked about other FTN networks in that context. Read my previous mails.

I suggest you stop trying to fight windmills.

I'm not sure if it is wise to take such advise from a global warming denier, who calls people trolls, just because they are not interested in arguing about contemporary US-Republican nonsense.

P.S.: "Your reading comprehension sucks." ;-P
P.P.S.: This is most likely my last reply to you. You are welcome to have the last word.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Terry Roati wrote to Dan Clough <=-

For the same reasons that non-members don't get to decide how to
conduct business in virtually any other "club" or organization
that you could name.

If a person wants to provide input, or request changes, or
whatever, then they become a member first. That's how it works.

Every sensible organization / club gets outside advice, whether
they use it is up to the membership.

Perhaps some, but not all. Many are not open to suggestions from
outside. In this particular case, the "advice" being given is
(paraphrasing): Your P4 policy sucks and should be re-done. One
of the exact words used was "crap". I don't see that as advice.

So your saying if a user (not a sysop) made a really good
suggestion you would automatically knock it back just because he
is not a sysop?

Depends on the context you meant there. A user of my board
suggesting something he'd like to see? Most likely would consider
it, yes. I don't think the same thing applies to what we are
talking about here though. It's a matter of scale. It's a policy
regarding the conduct of hundreds/thousands of operators. If you
want to have a say in something like that, you become a member of
the organization.



... All hope abandon, ye who enter messages here.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

On 19/11/2019 09:40, Oli -> Dan Clough wrote:

A point address is not in the Nodelist. You are not a nodelisted
Sysop.

Please spare me the explanations, I do know how a FTN works. I'm in the pointlist, which is technical nearly identical to a nodelist. Why is it
so hard to understand that there is no _technical_ reason for _me_ to
get a node number?

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

Oli wrote to Dan Clough <=-

I'm already a participant in Fidonet, I see no technical reason
(at the moment) to change my address from *.47 to *.0.

A point address is not in the Nodelist. You are not a nodelisted
Sysop.

Please spare me the explanations, I do know how a FTN works. I'm
in the pointlist, which is technical nearly identical to a
nodelist. Why is it so hard to understand that there is no
_technical_ reason for _me_ to get a node number?

Well, you certainly seem to /need/ the explanations. It isn't a
/technical/ issue - the whole point of this thread is to get you
to see that if you want to have a say in the operation of Fidonet
(changes to P4), you need to be a *MEMBER* of Fidonet. Not sure
why you have so much trouble understanding such a simple thing.

I already wrote that most other communication networks don't
have anything like the P4 and they still work.

All other FTN networks ("othernets") that I am aware of have
published guidelines/rules. Not as extensive as Fido's, but still
there.

I never talked about other FTN networks in that context. Read my
previous mails.

I did read the previous mails. So, why don't you tell me what you
meant by "other communication networks" if you were NOT talking
about FTN networks. I think we both know that that's exactly what
you were referring to.

I suggest you stop trying to fight windmills.

I'm not sure if it is wise to take such advise from a global
warming denier, who calls people trolls, just because they are
not interested in arguing about contemporary US-Republican
nonsense.

Heh. Typical liberal (likely millenial) response.
Change/divert/deflect the actual point of the conversation.

Keep whining about P4 all you want. Nobody is listening to you.


... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

On Nov 18, 2019 06:46pm, Dan Clough wrote to Terry Roati:

Depends on the context you meant there. A user of my board
suggesting something he'd like to see? Most likely would consider
it, yes. I don't think the same thing applies to what we are
talking about here though. It's a matter of scale. It's a policy regarding the conduct of hundreds/thousands of operators. If you
want to have a say in something like that, you become a member of
the organization.

I don't disagree, all I am saying is I would consider any good sensible workable advice, and not consider it because it came from a non memeber.



... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

Terry Roati wrote to Dan Clough <=-

Depends on the context you meant there. A user of my board
suggesting something he'd like to see? Most likely would consider
it, yes. I don't think the same thing applies to what we are
talking about here though. It's a matter of scale. It's a policy regarding the conduct of hundreds/thousands of operators. If you
want to have a say in something like that, you become a member of
the organization.

I don't disagree, all I am saying is I would consider any good
sensible workable advice, and not consider it because it came
from a non memeber.

I see your point too, and agree that it's stupid to not at least
consider all input regardless of source. But.... there comes a
point where you have to have limits, or else.... you don't really
have an organization any more, or at least any (internal) control
over said organization. I think requiring any actual proposals
come from "members in good standing" is not unusual or beyond what
a reasonable person should require.



... Nothing is so smiple that it can't get screwed up.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

On 19/11/2019 14:34, Dan Clough -> Terry Roati wrote:

I don't disagree, all I am saying is I would consider any good
sensible workable advice, and not consider it because it came
from a non memeber.

I see your point too, and agree that it's stupid to not at least
consider all input regardless of source. But.... there comes a
point where you have to have limits, or else.... you don't really
have an organization any more, or at least any (internal) control
over said organization. I think requiring any actual proposals
come from "members in good standing" is not unusual or beyond what
a reasonable person should require.

Besides Oli hasn't made any constructive criticism, all he's suggested is that "Policy is crap".

So far no-one has stated what is "crap" about Policy (well, other than the Fidonews submission address, and the viaducts, and the roads, and the schools, and the health services, ...)

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

On Nov 18, 2019 10:40pm, Dan Clough wrote to Terry Roati:

I see your point too, and agree that it's stupid to not at least
consider all input regardless of source. But.... there comes a
point where you have to have limits, or else.... you don't really
have an organization any more, or at least any (internal) control
over said organization. I think requiring any actual proposals
come from "members in good standing" is not unusual or beyond what
a reasonable person should require.

Totally agree with you.


... Platinum Xpress & Wildcat!..... Nice!!!!
--- Platinum Xpress/Win/WINServer v7.0
* Origin: The File Bank BBS! https://tfb-bbs.org (3:640/1321) (3:640/1321)

"David Drummond -> Oli" <0@305.640.3> wrote:

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

On 19/11/2019 19:15, Oli -> David Drummond wrote:

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

Unfortunately that is not distributed this way, unlike the Fidonet nodelist.

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

Hello Oli!

19 Nov 19 10:15, you wrote to David Drummond:

"David Drummond -> Oli" <0@305.640.3> wrote:

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

Boss,2:280/464 ,47,Frederick,Lummerland_Germany,Oliver_Thuns,-Unpublished-,300,CM,MO

No connect info available.

I can't crash a message to you or I can't poll your node because you don't have a node. :)

P.S. The pointlist cannot be used to contact an FTN system directly, by the way it's purpose is another. ;)

Ciao!
Fabio

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: ]\/[imac Rebirth Boss Point (2:335/364.1)

Hi Oli.

19 Nov 19 10:15:24, you wrote to David Drummond:

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

I can look... But I don't see the requested information there. ;)

=== Cut ===
Boss,2:280/464 ,47,Frederick,Lummerland_Germany,Oliver_Thuns,-Unpublished-,300,CM,MO
=== Cut ===

'Tommi

---
* Origin: IPv6 Point at [2001:470:1f15:cb0:2:221:1:1] (2:221/1.1)

Hello Oli,

On Tuesday November 19 2019 10:15, you wrote to David Drummond:

"David Drummond -> Oli" <0@305.640.3> wrote:

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

Boss,2:280/464 ,47,Frederick,Lummerland_Germany,Oliver_Thuns,-Unpublished-,300,CM,MO

There is no connect info for your point in the 28 pointlist.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hello David,

On Tuesday November 19 2019 19:45, you wrote to Oli:

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

Unfortunately that is not distributed this way, unlike the Fidonet nodelist.

http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidolist/

Or connect to the file area Z2PNT. (Here or at many other systems in Z2).


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 12:18:02 +0200
"Tommi Koivula -> Oli" <1@1.221.2> wrote:

Hi Oli.

19 Nov 19 10:15:24, you wrote to David Drummond:

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in
time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

I can look... But I don't see the requested information there. ;)

Exactly ;)
My node (fsxnet) / point (fidonet) is not reachable because of my internet connectivity at home (CGN, carrier grade NAT). Putting my system in the Fidonet nodelist wouldn't make my system magically reachable. Maybe I will use one of the 64^2 IPv6 addresses of my VPS and forward port 24554 to my raspberry pi at home over VPN.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:08:04 +0100
"Fabio Bizzi -> Oli" <1@364.335.2> wrote:

P.S. The pointlist cannot be used to contact an FTN system directly,
by the way it's purpose is another. ;)

It can. Not every software supports pointlists, not every node receives the pointlist, but it's possible. For binkd it only needs a script that converts the pointlist into binkd's node format.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Hi Oli.

19 Nov 19 13:02, you wrote to Fabio Bizzi:

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 11:08:04 +0100
"Fabio Bizzi -> Oli" <1@364.335.2> wrote:

P.S. The pointlist cannot be used to contact an FTN system directly,
by the way it's purpose is another. ;)

It can. Not every software supports pointlists, not every node receives

the

pointlist, but it's possible. For binkd it only needs a script that

converts

the pointlist into binkd's node format.

I wonder if the "nodelist.pl" perl realtime nodelist compiler supports pointlists..

'Tommi

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: nntps://news.fidonet.fi (2:221/6)

Hi Oli.

19 Nov 19 12:37:56, you wrote to me:

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in
time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

I can look... But I don't see the requested information there. ;)

Exactly ;)

This point of mine is reachable by binkp, however the information is not in the pointlist anymore. It can be found from the origin line. ;)

My node (fsxnet) / point (fidonet) is not reachable because of my
internet connectivity at home (CGN, carrier grade NAT).

Fidonet nodelist wouldn't make my system magically reachable. Maybe I
will use one of the 64^2 IPv6 addresses of my VPS and forward port
24554 to my raspberry pi at home over VPN.

Yes. There is always a way. :)

'Tommi

---
* Origin: IPv6 Point at [2001:470:1f15:cb0:2:221:1:1] (2:221/1.1)

"Tommi Koivula -> Oli" <0@6.221.2> wrote:

I wonder if the "nodelist.pl" perl realtime nodelist compiler
supports pointlists..

I don't think so, searching for the words "boss" or "point" in nodelist.pl doesn't show any matches.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Hello Oli!

19 Nov 19 13:02, you wrote to me:

P.S. The pointlist cannot be used to contact an FTN system
directly, by the way it's purpose is another. ;)

It can. Not every software supports pointlists, not every node
receives the pointlist, but it's possible. For binkd it only needs a script that converts the pointlist into binkd's node format.

Oli, I think you're enough smart to understand what I mean with "it purpose is another"... ;)

Ciao!
Fabio

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707
* Origin: ]\/[imac Rebirth Boss Point (2:335/364.1)

"Fabio Bizzi -> Oli" <1@364.335.2> wrote:

P.S. The pointlist cannot be used to contact an FTN system
directly, by the way it's purpose is another. ;)

It can. Not every software supports pointlists, not every node
receives the pointlist, but it's possible. For binkd it only
needs a script that converts the pointlist into binkd's node
format.

Oli, I think you're enough smart to understand what I mean with "it purpose is another"... ;)

Yes, I understand what you mean :). I agree that the original main purpose of a nodelist was to look up a name. But the statement "The pointlist cannot be used to contact an FTN system directly" is not exactly true.

The example from FTS-5002 includes a phone number.

;A Sample pointlist for Friday Aug 2 1996 day 044 : 12345
;
Boss,1:1/1
,1,First_point_of_node_1,Somewhere,John_Doe,-Unpublished-,300
,2,Joe'sPoint,Cybercity,Tom_Jennings,1-234-567-890,9600,V34,XX,U,ENC
,3,fido.vlist.net,Driebergen,Michiel_Vlist,-Unpublished-,300,CM,IBN

[...]
The telephone number field usually contains
"-Unpublished-" (without the quotes) but it need not be so. If the
point is online at certain times, it may contain the actual
telephone number.

If the "Boss" and "Point" format is not fully supported by some software, that's an implementation issue and not a limitation of the pointlist.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

On Tue, 19 Nov 2019 15:39:20 +0100
"Oli -> Fabio Bizzi" <47@464.280.2> wrote:

"Fabio Bizzi -> Oli" <1@364.335.2> wrote:

P.S. The pointlist cannot be used to contact an FTN system
directly, by the way it's purpose is another. ;)

It can. Not every software supports pointlists, not every node
receives the pointlist, but it's possible. For binkd it only
needs a script that converts the pointlist into binkd's node
format.

Oli, I think you're enough smart to understand what I mean with
"it purpose is another"... ;)

Yes, I understand what you mean :). I agree that the original main
purpose of a ~nodelist~ was to look up a name.

pointlist

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

Oli wrote to David Drummond <=-

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

Where does one get that list (in Zone 1)?

<EYEROLL>



... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Tommi Koivula wrote to Oli <=-

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

I can look... But I don't see the requested information there. ;)

=== Cut ===
Boss,2:280/464 ,47,Frederick,Lummerland_Germany,Oliver_Thuns,-Unpublished-,300,CM
,MO
=== Cut ===

Yep. Not reachable. Even though it shows the CM flag.



... Internal Error: The system has been taken over by sheep at line 19960
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

David Drummond wrote to Björn Felten <=-

Yes, there is that. But other than the Fidonews submission address,
what have the Romans ever given us ... er, what else in Policy *NEEDS*
to be changed?

We've had our differences of opinion in the past. Thank you for the laugh.


... Too weird to live, and too rare to die.
--- MultiMail/XT v0.52
* Origin: http://realitycheckbbs.org | tomorrow's retro tech (1:218/700)

On Mon, 18 Nov 2019 19:51:00 -0600
"Dan Clough -> Oli" <0@115.123.1> wrote:

Oli wrote to Dan Clough <=-

I'm already a participant in Fidonet, I see no technical reason
(at the moment) to change my address from *.47 to *.0.

A point address is not in the Nodelist. You are not a
nodelisted Sysop.

Please spare me the explanations, I do know how a FTN works. I'm
in the pointlist, which is technical nearly identical to a
nodelist. Why is it so hard to understand that there is no
_technical_ reason for _me_ to get a node number?

Well, you certainly seem to /need/ the explanations. It isn't a /technical/ issue - the whole point of this thread is to get you
to see that if you want to have a say in the operation of Fidonet
(changes to P4), you need to be a *MEMBER* of Fidonet. Not sure
why you have so much trouble understanding such a simple thing.

Come on! I already explained the non-technical side in the original mail that you were quoting. You omitted to quote that part (which was in the next paragraph). Instead you put your reply under the paragraph in which I was specifically talking about technical reasons only. Now you say it isn't about the technical issue.

There is really no point in discussing anything with you. I can watch these nonsense strategies on TV, no need to support your cherry-picking practice.

I never talked about other FTN networks in that context. Read my
previous mails.

I did read the previous mails. So, why don't you tell me what you
meant by "other communication networks" if you were NOT talking
about FTN networks. I think we both know that that's exactly what
you were referring to.

The idea that others constantly and consciously lie and deceive seems to have become very popular (in some groups), especially when the others have different opinions that are not compatible with ones worldview.

I'm not interested in playing that game.

---
* Origin: (2:280/464.47)

On 19/11/2019 20:13, Michiel van der Vlist -> David Drummond wrote:

How can my system directly access yours at this moment in time?

You can look that up in the Z2 pointlist.

Unfortunately that is not distributed this way, unlike the Fidonet
nodelist.

MvdV> http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidolist/

MvdV> Or connect to the file area Z2PNT. (Here or at many other systems in Z2).

So I need to "trawl" the world looking for other lists of connectivity instead of relying on the "official" Fidonet nodelist?

I guess I'll have to route if I want to contact him "privately".

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Straylia Mate (3:640/305)

Hello David,

what part/s of Policy *need* to be changed?

1.3.1 FidoNews

<snip>

Contributions are submitted to node 1:1/1; a file describing the

format

to be used is available from 1:1/1 and many other systems.

Yes, there is that. But other than the Fidonews submission address, what have the Romans ever given us ... er, what else in Policy *NEEDS* to be changed?

A few other things, namely the "loyalty oath".

Please note, I am not a worshipping devotee of Policy 4.anything, I see

it

as merely a guidance document.

Since the document itself is void, Oli is correct - "P4 is crap."

If you and others want to use that informal piece of "crap" as
a "guidance document" nobody will stop you. But I would not recommend
anybody try to wipe their a$$ with it. Unless they like gooey hands.

--Lee

--
Every Bottom Needs A Top

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

Hello Bj”rn,

what part/s of Policy *need* to be changed?

1.3.1 FidoNews

<snip>

Contributions are submitted to node 1:1/1; a file describing the format

to

be used is available from 1:1/1 and many other systems.

So.

Oli is correct.

P4 is crap.

--Lee

--
As Good As It Looks

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)

On 21/11/2019 03:41, Lee Lofaso -> David Drummond wrote:

Yes, there is that. But other than the Fidonews submission address, what
have the Romans ever given us ... er, what else in Policy *NEEDS* to be
changed?

A few other things, namely the "loyalty oath".

Oh? Which para is that?

Please note, I am not a worshipping devotee of Policy 4.anything, I see it
as merely a guidance document.

Since the document itself is void, Oli is correct - "P4 is crap."

Crap - as shown by ... Oli's opinion?

If you and others want to use that informal piece of "crap" as
a "guidance document" nobody will stop you. But I would not recommend anybody try to wipe their a$$ with it. Unless they like gooey hands.

And as such you are unlikely to get a node number.

How is that coming along BTW?

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: ... (3:640/305)

Oli wrote to Dan Clough <=-

I did read the previous mails. So, why don't you tell me what you
meant by "other communication networks" if you were NOT talking
about FTN networks. I think we both know that that's exactly what
you were referring to.

The idea that others constantly and consciously lie and deceive
seems to have become very popular (in some groups), especially
when the others have different opinions that are not compatible
with ones worldview.

Yes, I know. Seems it's a prerequisite to being a member of the
modern USA Democrat party. You should do some genealogy study -
you're likely related to Schiff. Neither of you can answer a
direct question with an honest answer.

I'm not interested in playing that game.

Nor am I.


... Ignorance can be cured. Stupid is forever.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.10-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:123/115)

Hello David,

On Wednesday November 20 2019 06:58, you wrote to me:

Unfortunately that is not distributed this way, unlike the
Fidonet nodelist.

From the use of the word "unfortunately" I deducted that you would like to have a look at it...

MvdV>> http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/fidolist/

MvdV>> Or connect to the file area Z2PNT. (Here or at many other
MvdV>> systems in Z2).

So I need to "trawl" the world looking for other lists of connectivity instead of relying on the "official" Fidonet nodelist?

Nope, there is no need.

I guess I'll have to route if I want to contact him "privately".

While it is technically possible for points to support incoming calls and receive direct netmail and the pointlist provides for publishing the connect info, very few points actually support it. The vast majority of points can only receive mail that is routed through their Boss node.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)

Hello Oli,

Why should I get a node number in R24 when I already have

I was not the one who suggested I should get a node number. You
already know that I think the P4 is crap and my proposal is to
get rid of it. If you don't want to get rid of P4 there are
obviously only two options for that specific issue: rewrite the
P4 (start with 1.3.2) or ignore (parts of) the P4.

But you did ask the question (sort of).

So what is holding you back in joining fidonet, surely not P4?

I'm already a participant in Fidonet, I see no technical reason (at the moment) to change my address from *.47 to *.0.

It would make whoever is pretending to be the Z2C happy.
It would also make whoever is pretending to be the IC happy.
It might also make whoever is pretending to be the Z1C happy,
as every pretender likes to pretend he/she likes pretending
to make the IC happy.

The P4 is another reason I don't the see the advantages for getting a node number. Simple nodes (who are *Cs) couldn't vote for the approval or disapproval of the P4. Unsurprisingly a node defined by the P4 has basically no power. If I had a node number, I still couldn't vote for a

new

Policy.

P4 is void. Not valid from the get-go. Just a piece of cyberjunk
a small handful of sysops dreamed up while smoking in the boy's room,
then telling everybody outside it should be worshipped and adored
by all.

So what's the point (of becoming a node)? People would find another aspect why I'm unworthy of having an opinion they could constantly bitch about.

Fidonet has always been open to all, both sysops and probationary
sysops alike. It is only a small handful of sysops who like to pretend
they have a monopoly on the enterprise.

Power/authority resides with individual sysops. Since Fidonet is
open to all, including those who are not yet full-fledged sysops, then
any sysop who claims otherwise is simply blowing hot air.

From now on I'm just ignoring the usual point bullying or other comments about my status in Fidonet.

Being a nodelisted sysop should entitle one to all the benefits
and privileges of being a nodelisted sysop. But such is not the
case, as you and others have stated. The only way to fix that
is for individual sysops to reclaim the power/authority they
should never have allowed others to usurp.

Since P4 is void, there is nothing to recognize making it legitimate.

Saying P4 is crap and to get rid of it without something to replace
it doesn't make sense. What is needed is a sensible proposal that
will work and can be agreed with by the majority.

First step is to acknowledge that the P4 is crap.

Admitting the obvious is difficult for some folks.

Such as followers of Donald Trump.

Eiher sysops are just as stupid as followers of Donald Trump,
or Donald Trump is aways right. It can't be both.

So which is it?

Is P4 crap, as every man, woman and child on earth knows?
Or is P4 a wonder to behold, as all Fidonet sysops would have
you believe?

You tell me.

If that is not what the majority agrees on, than I'm not the right guy to work out a so called "sensible" proposal.

The majority? Let's take a count -

Eenie, Meanie, Minie, Moe. Z1C, Z2C, Z3C, Z4C.
Plus Godzilla (IC) in case of a tie.

It would be just a waste of time.

The IC could be impeached and removed by the Gang of Four.
Or the IC could replace the Gang of Four with another Gang of Four.
Either way, the vote would bound to be unanimous.

Others here in Fidonet experienced that before and lost any motivation to work on it again or already left Fidonet.

I wonder why?

I already wrote that most other communication networks don't have anything like the P4 and they still work.

Admitting the obvious is a very difficult task ...

For some reason it was not possible to create smarter technology for distributing the nodelist, instead a hierarchical power structure was established that became self-sustaining (ZC appoints RCs, RCs elect ZC) with all the political and social implications and all the bullshit.

Somebody should write a book -

"How to Become a Glorified Nodelist Clerk: A Step-by-Step Manual"

And publish it anonymously.

In the Fidonews.

I came to that conclusion only recently,

Gosh, you are slow.

but other knew this a long time ago.

Cooperative Anarchy (can't burn down one's own house and nobody else's)

http://rxn.com/~net282/fidonet.bush.number.nine.txt

Handy Randy was a Dandy.

--Lee

--
I Take A Sheet In The Pool

--- MesNews/1.08.05.00-gb
* Origin: news://eljaco.se (2:203/2)