232 lines
9.5 KiB
Plaintext
232 lines
9.5 KiB
Plaintext
A private informational message for limited viewing. DO NOT POST!
|
|
|
|
by Tom Jennings (1:125/111)
|
|
30 Aug 92
|
|
|
|
It has been my understanding for a long time that the Zone
|
|
Coordinator (ZC) post is purely administrative, almost exclusively
|
|
seeing that the nodelist fragments get to where they are supposed to
|
|
go. This was backed up by current and previous ZCs.
|
|
|
|
This is not what Ron Dwight is up to. He has some very specific
|
|
pro-active goals of his own that he seems to be implementing
|
|
apparently without regard to anything else.
|
|
|
|
|
|
This past winter I editorialized in FidoNews 9-12 on trouble in zone
|
|
2. An exchange of messages with Ron Dwight ensued, in which he stated
|
|
(intentionally or otherwise) his goals for changes to FidoNet.
|
|
|
|
Basically, he told me that he aims to turn FidoNet into a "technical"
|
|
network, presumably by removing "non-technical" and to him, personally
|
|
offensive people and conferences. (As an example, I have been
|
|
receiving stories of gay/lesbian people and conferences in UK and
|
|
W.Germany being harrassed and disconnected by RCs, from people I trust
|
|
like Wynn Wagner III.)
|
|
|
|
He has the common delusion there were "good old days" that we need to
|
|
"turn back to", and in the same sentence, says he would never change
|
|
how FidoNet is used. Where have I heard this story before.
|
|
|
|
You can find side effects of Ron Dwight's ideas everywhere in zone 2;
|
|
I thought I'd share what appears to be some motivations. If you would
|
|
like to quote or refer to this or the source messages that follow,
|
|
please contact me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Tom Jennings
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Original Message Date: 23 Mar 92 01:36:17
|
|
From: Ron Dwight on 2:220/22
|
|
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
|
|
Subj: FidoNews editorial
|
|
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:220/22
|
|
Hi Tom,
|
|
I'd like, in a friendly manner, to take exception to your editorial
|
|
in FidoNews 912. Not because I feel threatened by it, but simply because
|
|
what you are saying is obviously misinformed and basically untrue.
|
|
|
|
For the reason that, like it or not, you ARE an influence to the
|
|
SysOps, I feel you should consider a little before writing something which
|
|
could be potentially damaging to a large number of SysOps.
|
|
|
|
I quote from your editorial:-
|
|
|
|
> Oh, I bet if you ask a few of the multiple-hundred people about to
|
|
> be viciously cut from the nodelist for not following the arbitrary
|
|
> machinations of a small, greedy power elite, you might find some
|
|
> of them starting to appreciate that redundancy.
|
|
|
|
I presume that you are talking about zone 2 here and as I accept
|
|
responsibility for the current situation, you are talking about me.
|
|
|
|
1) No-one, I repeat NO-ONE, is about to be cut, viciously or otherwise,
|
|
from the nodelist. If you have heard differently, then you have heard
|
|
wrong. It might have been nice to get information directly from the
|
|
horse's mouth, but this is one of the advantages of editorializing, truth
|
|
does not have to be a high priority.
|
|
|
|
2) Zone 2 is rapidly deteriorating into a set of locked (closed) nets
|
|
where the criteria for joining are becoming less and less related to
|
|
FidoNet activities.
|
|
|
|
One example is in Swizerland. They have two nets and the net in
|
|
which you are allocated a number is dependant upon whether you charge your
|
|
BBS users for access to International EchoMail or not.
|
|
|
|
Another example was that a node was not allowed to join FidoNet
|
|
unless he ran a BBS and had been running it for at least 6 months. That
|
|
situation has at least changed.
|
|
|
|
What I am trying to achieve here in zone 2 is the move back to a
|
|
TECHNICAL net, nothing more. I believe VERY firmly it's what we should be
|
|
and I have never, nor ever will attempt to influence the USE to which
|
|
FidoNet is put, I simply try to preserve what it IS.
|
|
|
|
> If they had been relying on their neighbors for connectivity
|
|
> (and they upon their neighbors, etc) they'd find themselves
|
|
> *completely* at the mercy of the holders of the lists. If the
|
|
> worst happens, as it appears is about to in zone 2,
|
|
|
|
Please see above. I repeat, NO-ONE has been even threatened
|
|
with removal from the zone 2 nodelist. What I have done, is to remove
|
|
FROM OFFICE, two Regional Coordinators, but they have NEVER been removed
|
|
from the nodelist as a whole. The removal was in accordance with policy
|
|
and executed according to policy. Situations have changed somewhat and in
|
|
fact one of them is already back in office as RC.
|
|
|
|
> all they have to do is retain the last nodelist they are in,
|
|
> regenerate the net fragments (if necessary), and generate a
|
|
> new nodelist. Hopefully displacing the idiots trying for the
|
|
> power play.
|
|
|
|
I have NO idea who you are talking about here as I am not an
|
|
idiot and certainly not implementing a power-play. Perhaps you should
|
|
look to Henk Wevers, he was the one who brought up the idea of creating an
|
|
alternate nodelist in zone 2. You might try finding out who would benefit
|
|
from that particular move. Don't ask him, FIND OUT.
|
|
|
|
> Consider also that the list fragments are COPYRIGHTED TO THE LOCAL
|
|
> NETS.
|
|
|
|
Consider also that the copyright must be passed to the
|
|
processing *Cs in order for the nodelist to be MODIFIED and processed by
|
|
MAKENL.
|
|
|
|
The statements that you make either as editor of FidoNews or a
|
|
Tom Jennings the founder of FidoNet are capable of having a very profound
|
|
effect on some of the more juvenile minded of FidoNet's SysOps, you have a
|
|
duty and a responsibility to feed them on truth. I really used to believe
|
|
that you held truth as a worthwhile quality, but I ain't so sure any more.
|
|
|
|
Ron Dwight, ZC2 and still trying to get something GOOD done.
|
|
|
|
Original Message Date: 30 Mar 92 01:01:17
|
|
From: tom jennings on 1:125/111
|
|
To: Ron Dwight on 2:220/22
|
|
Subj: re: FidoNews editorial
|
|
^AINTL 2:220/22 1:125/111
|
|
|
|
> I presume that you are talking about zone 2 here and as
|
|
> I accept responsibility for the current situation, you are
|
|
> talking about me.
|
|
|
|
As you wish...
|
|
|
|
> It might have been nice to get
|
|
> information directly from the horse's mouth, but this is one of
|
|
> the advantages of editorializing, truth does not have to be a
|
|
> high priority.
|
|
|
|
I did. There are other people involved, as well. You may recall, a few
|
|
messages back to jokingly referred to "putting some people into line
|
|
in Zone 2", which I thought was completely inappropriate for a ZC.
|
|
|
|
> 2) Zone 2 is rapidly deteriorating into a set of locked (closed)
|
|
> nets where the criteria for joining are becoming less and less
|
|
> related to FidoNet activities.
|
|
|
|
Why people join FidoNet is up to them. It is noones business why they
|
|
join. It is not the ZCs job to "manage" the net.
|
|
|
|
> One example is in Swizerland. They have two nets and
|
|
> [..] FidoNet unless he ran a BBS and had been running it for at
|
|
least
|
|
> 6 months.
|
|
|
|
I have no information on these, and of course terrible things *are*
|
|
done in FidoNet, by both individual sysops an the so-called *C
|
|
structure. I dont see it as black vs. white.
|
|
>
|
|
> What I am trying to achieve here in zone 2 is the move
|
|
> back [a] to a TECHNICAL net, nothing more. I believe VERY firmly
|
|
> it's what we should be [b] and I have never, nor ever will attempt
|
|
> to influence the USE [c] to which FidoNet is put, I simply try to
|
|
> preserve what it IS [d].
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ah... the very crux of the problem contained in a few words.
|
|
|
|
Note my added [x]'s above. [a] [b] and [d] are simply your personal
|
|
interpretations. "should be" is very subjective. "influence the USE"
|
|
is exactly what you are doing. "Back"?! This is fantasy, it was never
|
|
"only technical" and besides, lets move forwards. "What it is" is
|
|
diverse, and trying to push things into some direction you prefer or
|
|
truly believe is correct (others obviously disagree) is exactly the
|
|
problem.
|
|
|
|
Nor do I simplisticly assume "you" are an Evil Monster controlling
|
|
things, etc. Lots of people belive this stuff. Coupled with
|
|
complacency, and poor communication...
|
|
|
|
> having a very profound effect on some of the more juvenile
|
|
> minded of FidoNet's SysOps, you have a duty and a responsibility
|
|
|
|
No one "knows better" enough to tell others how to run their systems.
|
|
|
|
The POLICY documents are useless garbage. Anything that gives a ZC the
|
|
power to appoint RCs, then reserves the power to pitch out the ZC to
|
|
the RCs, is a joke. I made my opinion on POLICY4 very clear years ago.
|
|
I do not consider it in force, nor do many others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
I do not wish to cutoff communications. The force with which you
|
|
believe something does not make it true. Other peoples realities are
|
|
equally valid. In fact, FidoNet works quite well, and "consistency" is
|
|
not a virtue. Diversity is. This is communications, not a technical
|
|
corporation. It will not run like a corporation if I have any
|
|
influence.
|
|
|
|
If net members want to have multiple overlapping nets within a zone,
|
|
arranged by interest rather than geographic, so be it. Those
|
|
geographic arrangement "rules" were very naively done, here in North
|
|
America, where the "free local call" was the dominant factor. I know.
|
|
I designed it. The playing field has changed, and this concept doesnt
|
|
even exist outside the US!
|
|
|
|
----------------
|
|
|
|
In the future, potential interests of other FidoNet members, I've
|
|
saved your message, and this reply, in a text file. Do you mind if at
|
|
some later date I make this avilable to others? I'll only do so if
|
|
this conversation "goes somewhere". I will save everything from this
|
|
point onward (fair warning :-)
|
|
|
|
My goal is documentation. I wanted to define the expectation of
|
|
privacy also, anything less would be unfair at best. Let me know what
|
|
you think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(* NOTE ADDED BY TJ 30 Aug 92: I never received another message from
|
|
Ron regarding this specific conversation. *)
|