Hi, Carol!

30 Nov 02 09:42, Carol Shenkenberger said to Alex Shakhaylo:

 CS>> That has validity but still, one needs a little care when dealing
 CS>> with issues that do not affect your own zone/region but *do*
 CS>> affect others.

 AS>> Sure. That's why everything should be discussed first.

 CS> Understood then.  Be aware that the smaller areas will not be able to
 CS> be heard sometimes unless care is taken.

The problem I see is every simple techique to accept decisions has its
lacks. But very complex technique has lacks too due to managing complexity.
Unfortunately I don't know how to reach the golden mean, but I know that
current technique is unsatisfactory.

 CS>> would easily pass it by a majority vote.  Z6 would lose however,
 CS>> it's last bastion of nodelist corrections.

 AS>> I don't think the policy should order  who in particular should
 AS>> compil nodelist. It only should state that *Cs are responsible for
 AS>> the proces

 CS> Yes.  And as said, that one example is a tiny microcosm thing.  I
 CS> showed it only to show how lack of knowledge can be damaging.  None of
 CS> us really know how all the other zones work.

Indeed. We should agree then, that any change or amendement should be
approved by all the zones before to be presented to voting. I mean a
vote mechanism also should be developed.

 CS> Because I've found it interesting so have asked sporadically on
 CS> various things for 13 years now, I have a relative grasp of some
 CS> aspects in how we differ.  That does /not/ mean I know all or even
 CS> pretend to do so.

You are OK with this. I like your tolerance and readiness to compromise
accopanied by the strong principles. These are not the fair words, this
is my true feeling.

 CS> You came across one just recently.  ION listings and default to
 CS> 'fidonet.org/net' without FQDN in the nodelist.  It has both good and
 CS> bad to it but I think you know now it isnt a universal assumption .
 CS> It may become one but there are technical connectivity issues with
 CS> some IP mailers.

You are right. We cannot dream one of the ways to become universal. But
I never thought of the thing. I'm racking my brains over how to conciliate
all the practicised manners in a most painless way.

 CS>> Would you have the whole picture though?

 AS>> I'm afraid the whole picture is not possible in principle.

 CS> True.  Thats all that I was looking to see.  I wasnt sure.

Great. It seems I've passed one of your tests :-)

Yes, Carol. I understand that to suit some separate community is more
easier task than to suit everybody and that there is a temptation for
majority to try to benefit at expence of a minority.

But I'm against the idea 'don't touch something because it works some-
how'. I hope I've made clear my position.

 AS>> Hm .. I can't imagine that operations can be destroyed in such a
 AS>> way. I'm sure that our regions will operate independently of ANY
 AS>> policy changes.

 CS> True again but it also causes some acrimony among the 'purists' when
 CS> they find one region/zone doing things differently.

Oh .. I'm afraid I see what you are talking about .. But .. but we are
here to counterbalance those 'purists' :-)

To say the truth I was more pessimistic when was trying to enter inter-
national level of fidonet communication.  I was ready to face supersti-
tions of many kinds. Now I'm optimistic (reasonably :-). I see that the
community is healthy enough to find inner resources to move forward and
to care about the needs of all its parts.

 CS> Look at the
 CS> messages on how Z1 routes netmail to see how some do not like it if
 CS> another concept is used.  BTW, Z1 does it like your region pretty
 CS> much.  Mix and match of HRN and ERN.

I accept it as an example of disagreement, but I think a local routing
cannot and should not be a subject of an international discussion in
general. Trust me, I do not care about inner z1 routing and I don't
understand the people that are outside z1 but care about its inner
routing. 

Bye, Sinc, Alex

--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1