Subj : Reality Check!
To   : George Vandervort
From : Roy Witt
Date : Sat Sep 28 2002 01:22 pm

28 Sep 02 07:00, George Vandervort wrote to Roy Witt:

 RW>> Fidonet administration and their policy doesn't enter into the
 RW>> picture, as far as I'm concerned.
 RW>>
 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
 MB>>> rights of that moderator.  The moderator is the boss of his echo.
 MB>>> We have seen a lot over the last few months where the moderator's
 MB>>> rights have been infringed upon by mail movers, and even
 MB>>> coordinators.

 GV> and there in lies the Rub I'll have to Agree with Half-Witt on this
 GV> issue.. :-)

If you mean me, I'm all Witt. I doubt that you'd even qualify to have any
Witt in your genes.

 GV> While it is true that Moderators Own their indididual Echo's,
 GV> It is also true that your Echo's Distribution is dependent on
 GV> the Voluntary good will of many other Systems involved in the
 GV> Distribution system..

When they volunteer, it's after you make a request to them to carry it,
under their guidelines.  It's for you to decide if you want them to carry
it and you may pull your echo from distribution on one without affecting
the others, in most cases.

 GV> As a Moderator, you have the right to cooperate with the distribution
 GV> systems, or yank your Echo and foot the "expense" of distributing
 GV> your privately..  :-)

No problem, as I'm as capable as they are of distributing my echoes.
Moreso in some cases, as the distribution systems don't provide an email
attach service.  Nor do they provide a gateway to anything I choose to
bring in from the internet.

 RW>>
 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
 RW>> requests based on the distribution system's operators whims. Either
 RW>> follow your SLA and the echo's rules, or get out of distribution.
 MB>>> Echopol?  pfft.
 RW>>
 RW>> Exactly.
 RW>>
 MB>>> The only thing a policy needs to be concerned with
 MB>>> as far as moderators are concerned is that moderators own their
 MB>>> echo for as long as they keep it viable and remain active.  In
 MB>>> other words, if we had such a world wide echo registery, as long
 MB>>> as he kept his listing, he or she is the moderator.

But only if the echo listing is kept up to date every six months.

 MB>>> The only time fidonet being concerned with the administation of an
 MB>>> echo is if it were  the source of illegal acitivity.

Not even then. The echo is the property of the moderator who may or may
not be a Fidonet sysop.  They may have concern over what the moderator
allows, but no Fidonet administrator should have any say about it. The
distribution systems have their working agreements that usually take care
of these matters.  Witness the dropping from distribution the FLAME echo a
few years back, for content.

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

 GV> Regards,
 GV> George Vandervort

 GV> ... Steve Winter took me to Singapore & all I got was a Caining :-)

Steve Winter lives in Escondido, CA and drives a Camaro.


.... Marriage License:  A noose paper...
--- Yet Another Bogus Mail Packet
 * Origin: **  Moderator - HAM ** (1:10/22)

.