Subj : Reality Check! To : George Roberts From : Roy Witt Date : Sun Sep 29 2002 09:25 am 28 Sep 02 15:23, George Roberts wrote to Roy Witt: 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 RW>> picture, as far as I'm concerned. GR> At the risk of you thinking I'm a wanker, I'll disagree here. P4 GR> DOES govern echomail conferences. I'm afraid that you're wrong, George. Here's how I see it and how anyone else who understands English will also see it. Note that when they're speaking of 'Policy' they're referring to P4 and when they're speaking of 'policy', they're speaking of anothere policy, ie: EP1 or some other policy considered to be an echomail policy. Taken out of context, the first sentence of 9.9 could mean what you say, had they not gone on to clarify their postion. "Echomail is an important and powerful force in FidoNet. For the purposes of Policy Disputes, echomail is simply a different flavor of netmail, and is therefore covered by Policy." It's very clear that they didn't mean P4 when they went on to say; "By its nature, echomail places unique technical and social demands on the net over and above those covered by this version of Policy." IMO, they disqualified P4 as a guide to use in determining anything that had to do with echomail. Not only on a technical basis, but a social basis as well. So they implemented the following to clearly say that one day, there may very well 'be' an echomail policy. "In recognition of this, an echomail policy which extends (and does not contradict) general Policy, maintained by the Echomail Coordinators, and ratified by a process similar to that of this document, is recognized by the FidoNet Coordinators as a valid structure for dispute resolution on matters pertaining to echomail." In other words, when there is an echomail policy, it will not contridict P4, and the echomail policy will be used to settle disputes pertaining to echomail. At such time as there is an echomail policy, echomail does not come under P4. Had there been an echomail policy, they would surely have named it somewhere in this section. All they did was refer to the future and what it may hold. "At some future date the echomail policy document may be merged with this one." There hasn't been an echomail policy that has ever been 'ratified' in any similar process as was P4. The one they use in Z2 and claim to have removed a moderator from the nodelist with, may have been in force where he was listed, but that doesn't mean the rest of Fidonet has to suffer the same fate. (I'd sure like to hear the truth of what happened in the law suit brought against the ZC2, by that person.) The position of two former Z1Cs will also confirm thi to be true. I have no idea of the present Z1C's position on it, but I'd say it was the same as her predecessors; considering the history between the two of us. GR> Are there problems with that? Sure. How does P4 govern echos that GR> are carried privately? P4 can't govern echoes, period. Echoes don't belong to Fidonet, they belong to the moderator. If a moderator is not a Fidonet sysop, how would P4 handle 'excessively annoying behavior' of that moderator? Sure, the node where the moderator accesses the echo may come under the jurisdiction of P4, but what do you do if the moderator accesses the echo through an entity not within Fidonet. An internet list, for instance. GR> P4 doesn't state that there is an official distribution system, so GR> where do you draw the line on what is covered by policy and what GR> isn't? They're subject to P4 only in the sense that they have a Fidonet node number. Whatever else they do with echomail, is their business. GR> I'm not saying that the current situation is good. However, P4 DOES GR> state that its policies apply to echomail. I just don't think that GR> that is a realistic expectation. Since we disagree, you'll have to satisfy your own expectations. 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. 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. GR> I think that policy does have a role to play -- that role being to GR> state something along the lines of: Echomail does not fall under the GR> same policy as covered in this Fidonet Policy document. It falls GR> under the rules and conditions of the distribution system(s) that GR> carry the specific echomail conference in question. Those rules are GR> absolute. So are the moderator's echo rules. GR> Obviously, you could go into a bit more detail to secure it, but I GR> think that policy needs to state that it doesn't cover echomail but GR> state explicitly what does. But it already states that it doesn't by virtue of the fact that there must be an echomail policy. Without it, P4 has no jurisdiction. 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 MB>> kept his listing, he or she is the moderator. The only time fidonet MB>> being concerned with the administation of an echo is if it were the MB>> source of illegal acitivity. RW>> Let's keep Fidonet's administration out of it and their policy too. GR> Again, with the exception of publicly and in writing stating that GR> policy doesn't cover echomail and stating specifically what does. GR> Just my $.02 :-) Here's your change..:o) .... I'm just driving this way to piss you off. --- * Origin: ** Moderator - VLISTSUCKS ** (1:10/22) .