Felipe T. Dorado (2:345/702) wrote to Steven Horn at 21:14 on 20 Dec 2002:

 FTD> Sorry I haven't been able to find the time to answer before,
 FTD> Steven.

I'm not exactly quick either.:-) 

 FTD> Let us hope the network will not degrade through uses foreign to
 FTD> it.

You might have to clarify what "foreign uses" are.  Fidonet has
carried mail and files for a long while. 

 FTD>> Ok, if those means of contacting other nodes is to be
 FTD>> accepted, should it not be contemplated in Policy?

 SH> It probably should be.

 FTD> Foresight and provision.

In fact, these means are reflected in Policy.  Policy refers to Fidonet
Technical Standards (FTS) and these have been amended over the years.
FTS5000 and FTS5001 coveer IP connection. 

 FTD> Following that line of reasoning, why not give up altogether,
 FTD> forget Fido and create a FidoInet once and for all?

As it turns out, we don't have a separate network.  The first efforts at
integrating the POTS part of the network and the Internet portion have
already begun.

 FTD> There are a number of factors in Fido being what it is and that
 FTD> have nothing to do with the technology used. Those proposing wide
 FTD> use of IP only technology seem to fail to mention or even take
 FTD> into account those factors. A FidoInet would solve all the
 FTD> problems posed by policy and nodelistings so far mentioned. Are
 FTD> they brave enough to propose it and do it?  Why not?  It seems
 FTD> easy enough. Elaborate a policy and detach from Fidonet completely
 FTD> if they are so convinced of its values. If they are right we will
 FTD> all end up there and P4 will finally be sent to the museum.
 FTD> Or is it that such a network already exists and cannot be called
 FTD> Fido?

Splitting something which is already shrinking makes little sense. 

 FTD> Is it possible for someone to comment or expand on the list of
 FTD> concrete things that an aceptable-to-the-majority policy should
 FTD> contain?   Carol listed a few things. What else should be added?
 FTD> An open wishlist would help. Perhaps Bob has it and could post it.

I don't ever recall a wishlist being involved in Bob's effort.  The
objectives were carefully limited so that they would not be controversial
but it is questionable if this tactic has worked.
 
 FTD> Personally I do not have time to wade through tons of messages
 FTD> arguing about pots versus ip. Why not put the emphasis on what we
 FTD> agree instead of arguing about what separates us?  At least we
 FTD> could isolate what those differences are. A comprehensive
 FTD> wish-list of Pro-IP proponents would be of use. Simultaneously a
 FTD> list of Fido-features that we consider should be lost could be
 FTD> made. Both positions could be viewed and evaluated. It is a
 FTD> starting point for discussions pursuing agreements and not endless
 FTD> arguing.

Amending Policy 4 itself appears to be impossible but amending the
technical standards offer some hope.  Take a look at the FTSC_PUBLIC echo.

 FTD> I think we all agree that such a thing is needed.
 FTD> Could we work on that and leave the arguing for another eco? 
 FTD> Please :)

This is an echo about policy.  Surely you can't expect a discussion of
policy without some agreement?:-)

Take care,

Steven Horn (steven_a_horn{at}yahoo.ca)
Moderator, ALASKA_CHAT 
--- timEd/386 1.10.y2k+