Hola Steven  :)

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

Monday December 09 2002 19:02, Steven Horn decˇa a Felipe T. Dorado:

 FTD>> Something was amiss then and now it is not only the modems but
 FTD>> also the network.

 SH> As long as the bridge nodes exist, the network will be fine.

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

 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.

Foresight and provision.

 FTD>> I think yes. And it is the nodes that cannot be contacted
 FTD>> through
 FTD>> this network the ones to put forward the proposed changes to
 FTD>> Policy. That way we all, and prospective nodes, know what to do
 FTD>> and what to expect if we want to contact any other node.

 SH> As you know from your correspondence with Bob Short, the modest package of
 SH> proposals he prepared (on which I assisted) appears to be going nowhere.
 SH> In light of that, what is the likelihood of much more substantive changes
 SH> going ahead?

Following that line of reasoning, why not give up altogether, forget Fido
and create a FidoInet once and for all?
If policy cannot be changed, why not let those inmovilistic, retrograde,
antiprogress and obsolete hobbyists of mail alone and let their antique
network die of natural causes?  Patching the patches is cumbersome to say
the least.

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

Is it possible for someone to comment or expand on the list of concrete
things that an aceptable-to-the-majority policy should contain?   Carol
listed a few things. What else should be added? An open wishlist would
help. Perhaps Bob has it and could post it.
Personally I do not have time to wade through tons of messages arguing
about pots versus ip. Why not put the emphasis on what we agree instead of
arguing about what separates us?  At least we could isolate what those
differences are.
A comprehensive wish-list of Pro-IP proponents would be of use.
Simultaneously a list of Fido-features that we consider should be lost
could be made. Both positions could be viewed and evaluated. It is a
starting point for discussions pursuing agreements and not endless arguing.

 FTD>> That is freedom.

 SH> I won't go that far but it would make for a much more intelligent
 SH> policy.:-)

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

Felipe  :)

--- Fastecho 1.45/GED/Fd 2.12