137 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
137 lines
5.2 KiB
Plaintext
Original Message Date: 15 Mar 92 23:03:56
|
||
From: Henk Wevers on 2:500/1
|
||
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
|
||
Subj: Divs
|
||
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:500/1
|
||
Hi Tom,
|
||
|
||
Long time no talk.
|
||
|
||
A few things.
|
||
|
||
1) I heared from Randy that you have inquired about what is going on in <20>
|
||
zone
|
||
2. a short explanation:
|
||
- we have been organized in europe traditionally in what some people <20>
|
||
call
|
||
overlapping nets, others social nets. Not only in Holland, but in <20>
|
||
other
|
||
regions as well. This is partly my doing because when I was handling <20>
|
||
the
|
||
nodelist I allowed this (contrary to the RC's in zone 1) because I <20>
|
||
rather
|
||
had all people using fidonet technology in one nodelist in stead of
|
||
'alternets'. For new nodes there is no problem, you either join a
|
||
regional organized net, or join one of the club nets to your liking.
|
||
Remember we were doing this years before we had any policy.
|
||
- we now have a ZC (Ron Dwight) who believes that Policy 4 is the one <20>
|
||
and
|
||
only law and should be obeyed, no matter what. Eg, we should end our <20>
|
||
old
|
||
nets and reorganize.
|
||
- some regions showed Ron the middle finger and said that the sysops in <20>
|
||
the
|
||
regions concerned would know best themselves how they would be <20>
|
||
organized.
|
||
And that no one outside their region would have any technical
|
||
problem with the way the region was organised. (Most regions have 1
|
||
inbound gate for mail).
|
||
- Well, being unable to made the region and the Rc involved do what he
|
||
wanted them to do, and because the regions did not want another Rc
|
||
(they were content with their rc, who was doing what they wanted) Ron
|
||
decided to remove the RC's concerned from the fidonet nodelist and
|
||
stopped processing nodelist updates from those regions.
|
||
- Region 28 (holland) in front as usual mailed bundles of complaints to
|
||
the IC, who replied that he would not interfere and that Ron was right
|
||
anyway. Policy is law, period.
|
||
- We are now stuck at the moment, Ron has threathened to reorganize the
|
||
nodes into other nets himself (apperently using phonenumbers) because
|
||
he can find no-one in the regions concerned who would follow
|
||
his 'orders'.
|
||
|
||
So far the current state. According to Matt, the Zc only RC's can throw <20>
|
||
Ron
|
||
out of teh ZC 'job'. Also according policy and Matt and Ron, Ron <20>
|
||
appoints
|
||
the Rc's. Nice cobstruction that is....
|
||
|
||
The only real thing I can think of now is to start our own zone nodelist
|
||
and distribute that. As the two 'club nets' in holland take a large <20>
|
||
part in
|
||
distribution of the diffs in europe this could be done. I proposed this <20>
|
||
in
|
||
a conference as a friendly revolution and appearently made Ron really <20>
|
||
mad.
|
||
|
||
So here it is. I have not started making my own zone nodelist yet. It <20>
|
||
will
|
||
put europe in a bad shape, although lots of sysops agree with me.
|
||
I also don't like to give in and make another 'alternet' and loose
|
||
connections with old friends.
|
||
|
||
Any suggestions from your side ? Any idea how to handle this ? Talking <20>
|
||
does
|
||
not help any more. As far as I know you I am sure you dislike this self
|
||
appointed power using policy as THE law as much as I do. So this message
|
||
really means: HEEEEEEEELP !
|
||
|
||
|
||
2) Now for the fun part. The TipTop project by Randy and me. The project <20>
|
||
is a
|
||
way to stabilze echo and netmail in europe by using the Eunet (uucp)
|
||
transatlantic link in off peak hours. Randy and I (in this order) cotacted <20>
|
||
the
|
||
Eunet executives and got their approval. We are in the testphase but we <20>
|
||
are able
|
||
to move (echo) mail transparantly, eg seen from my system Randy's node is
|
||
located in amsterdam. We move a lot of conferences, netmail and the uucp
|
||
gatemail already. I am organizing non profit organisations in european <20>
|
||
regions
|
||
to handle the costsharing for getting the (echo) into their region. One of <20>
|
||
the
|
||
rules of TipTop is that a regional TipTop gate must pass every echomail
|
||
conference on the TipTop backbone to every net in the region that wants it.
|
||
There are some rules for costsharing (you know us, shareware does not work <20>
|
||
very
|
||
well in europe, people try to get free rides as much as possible), but <20>
|
||
basically
|
||
the idea is that it should be fair and open. I have seen remarkable results
|
||
already, exit echomail powerplay in europe. I am trying to make myself
|
||
redundant by the end of this year. If you want more info, I'll send the <20>
|
||
current
|
||
docs. Oh yes, TipTop stands for Transatlantic Internet Project, Topdown
|
||
organized. The technical side is not run as a democracy, but is a top star
|
||
system to minimize dup loops risk. We will have connected the following <20>
|
||
regions
|
||
next week:
|
||
|
||
- Israel, Belgium, Holland, Denmark, Sweden, Austria, Italy
|
||
|
||
We are working with Switserland and Finland to get them going. Its not <20>
|
||
that easy
|
||
because you need a few people to cooperate to get the mail in with bearable
|
||
costs.
|
||
|
||
|
||
Ok, 'nough said. I'll probably get the dutch sysops to send you kilo's of <20>
|
||
drop
|
||
if you can help us with the zc problem. Route mail via 1:105/42 or direct. <20>
|
||
(v32
|
||
bis here).
|
||
|
||
|
||
Cheers
|
||
|
||
Henk
|
||
|
||
|
||
|
||
----------------
|
||
|
||
policy4 written before ZONES EXISTED. No eur nodes then!
|
||
basic assumption behind (US) nets was "local dialing is free" doesnt
|
||
exist in eur! Negates the rationale.
|
||
|
||
ZC/RC relationship is intentionally contrived and is obviously invalid
|
||
no matter how many places its written down.
|