textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/JENNINGS/STANDARDS/policy4.art.txt

41 lines
1.8 KiB
Plaintext
Raw Permalink Blame History

* How Did This Happen?
Tom Jennings 1:125/111
Let's keep this simple: at no time have the sysops of our FidoNet<65>
network given /0's the privilege of determining how our network<72>
is run. They are not representatives of anyone but themselves;<3B>
they are merely administrative nodes to generate nodelist<73>
fragments, help new sysops get online and act as repositories of<6F>
the necessary network files. They are ordinary nodes with more<72>
work to do.
A dangerous thing has been attempted, and is undermining the<68>
trust that we rely on. "POLICY4" is simply not in effect, it was<61>
not voted upon by the members at large. I, and many many others,<2C>
are simply ignoring the supposed policy "change". How did this<69>
happen?
POLICY4 is terrible policy. It takes the right to choose your own<77>
net host way! It entrenches /0's as positions of authority. This<69>
is insane and does not facilitate our communications. A "smoothly<6C>
running network" is not our goal; we are here to communicate,<2C>
that is all. We do that well now. Even voting on POLICY4 is<69>
insane, it certainly will not benefit the 6000 or so sysops in<69>
the network!
I've had FidoNet users tell me that their host doesn't auto-
matically route them their host-routed mail. This was the most
basic purpose of a net host to begin with! The whole concept of
host-routing was to make FidoNet more effecient by concentrating
calls!
Anyways, If a few-dozen or -hundred /0's can vote, then a
few-thousand can represent themselves just as simply. So what
if it takes a long time, expediency is not a goal. If we don't
have the tool(s), write them or do it by hand. Freeze a nodelist
as the "list of registered voters". Have everyone send in a
message. Check them off the list. Hold redundant votes, compare
results. Give it a month. The net runs fine, there is no need to
implement bad policy just to satisfy some bureaucratic urge!