Subj : Re: Reality Check!
To   : Roy Witt
From : George Roberts
Date : Sat Sep 28 2002 04:23 pm

 MB> Of course such a system raises a very important question.  Is a
 MB> "fidonet" echo under the juristiction of fidonet?

 RW> No, as I've pointed out above. Fidonet doesn't own any echoes, nor does
 RW> any policy govern these privately owned echoes.

 MB> Where does the power of fidonet administration end and those of the
 MB> moderator begin?

 RW> Fidonet administration and their policy doesn't enter into the picture,
 RW> as far as I'm concerned.

At the risk of you thinking I'm a wanker, I'll disagree here.  P4 DOES govern
echomail conferences.  Are there problems with that?  Sure.  How does P4
govern echos that are carried privately?  P4 doesn't state that there is an
official distribution system, so where do you draw the line on what is
covered by policy and what isn't?

I'm not saying that the current situation is good.  However, P4 DOES state
that its policies apply to echomail.  I just don't think that that is a
realistic expectation.

 MB> Echo movement could be covered more extensively by policy, but if
 MB> that were to happen, I would want such a policy to protect the rights
 MB> of that moderator.  The moderator is the boss of his echo.  We have
 MB> seen a lot over the last few months where the moderator's rights have
 MB> been infringed upon by mail movers, and even coordinators.

 RW> Let's keep policy out of it.  Distribution system 'service level
 RW> agreements' and 'echo rules' should be all that's required. Not to
 RW> mention that those distribution systems who refuse moderator requests
 RW> based on the distribution system's operators whims. Either follow your
 RW> SLA and the echo's rules, or get out of distribution.

I think that policy does have a role to play -- that role being to state
something along the lines of: Echomail does not fall under the same policy
as covered in this Fidonet Policy document.  It falls under the rules and
conditions of the distribution system(s) that carry the specific echomail
conference in question.  Those rules are absolute.

Obviously, you could go into a bit more detail to secure it, but I think that
policy needs to state that it doesn't cover echomail but state explicitly
what does.

 MB> Echopol?  pfft.

 RW> Exactly.

 MB> The only thing a policy needs to be concerned with
 MB> as far as moderators are concerned is that moderators own their echo
 MB> for as long as they keep it viable and remain active.  In other
 MB> words, if we had such a world wide echo registery, as long as he kept
 MB> his listing, he or she is the moderator.  The only time fidonet being
 MB> concerned with the administation of an echo is if it were  the source
 MB> of illegal acitivity.

 RW> Let's keep Fidonet's administration out of it and their policy too.

Again, with the exception of publicly and in writing stating that policy
doesn't cover echomail and stating specifically what does.

Just my $.02 :-)



| George A. Roberts IV     | Developer, Nexus Bulletin Board System          |
|                          | Moderator, Fido BBS_CARNIVAL, NEXUS, DELPHI.ENG |
| groberts@nexusbbs.net    |                                                 |
| http://www.nexusbbs.net/ | "Oh, bother." - Pooh                            |


.... "Begun, this clone war has."
___ MultiMail/Win32 v0.41
--- Nexus v0.99.41.006-alpha [node 10]
 * Origin: the core :: nexus support bbs :: www.nexusbbs.net (1:220/10)

.