Hola Alex  :)

Sunday November 24 2002 14:59, Alex Shakhaylo decˇa a Felipe T. Dorado:

 AS>>> second is USSR disinteg- ration. Both cases suited majority

 FD>> I can assure you I was very much aware of either of them when I wrote
 FD>> that to you. Whatever can be done before resorting to brute force is
 FD>> better for everyone involved. So, try first the legitimate way.

 AS> But it was said here that for 13 years legitimate attempts failed.
 AS> How many attemps should fail to change your mind ?

;)  A few in which I've been involved  };)
The point is that I was not a Node when any of the preceeding ones
"failed", or so I've been told. So I was not even aware of them
nor could I be involved.
Anyway, actual *Cs are not the same ones as before are they?  I for one ;)

 FD>> If and when that fails, repeatedly, then and only then could force
 FD>> become justifiable. We are just too many people involved to be able
 FD>> to find fast and aceptable solutions for everybody and everything.

 AS> I'm aware of the complexity. OK, I'll try to make people know that my
 AS> attempt of referenda is not aimed to harm current attempt to amend
 AS> policy in traditional way. It will be stated in the text. I'll ask the
 AS> people to participate in both enactments and the only question that
 AS> I'm going to remain is: "whether you think the policy can be changed by
 AS> networkwide referenda ?"

 AS> I think that in all the cases we will benefit.

I figured you were not as radical as you seemed at first ;)
Congratulations on your decission :)

 AS> 1. If referenda fails (less than 50% will participate), then response
 AS> from it can help to RCs to wake up to participate in traditional refe-
 AS> renda.

Yes.
In fact I did more or less the same you have put on the table for us but at
the regional level. It was more specific than what you cover though.

 AS> 2. if referenda succeed, then we will know that majority will not
 AS> object
 AS> to change the policy in alternate way. Then in case of RCs' referenda
 AS> fail we can (with a help of IC) try the alternate way.

Ok. It will serve as a guide.

I hope, for you, and for us all, that people participate, in that poll but
better still in the amendment in course since it has followed what is laid
down as the way to do it.

 AS>>> I've been mistaken. Now I see the policy is even worse than I
 AS>>> thought it was :(

 FD>> There are basically two ways of looking at a bottle: it's half empty
 FD>> and it's half full. Whichever point between the two you may happen to
 FD>> look at policy, gosh, things can't be that bad, can they?  If they
 FD>> were, Fido would not have grown so much in the past.

 AS> Well. But take in account that at times when fido was growing the people
 AS> were carried by the process itself and by technical problems rather.

Yeap. Some day someone will look at why a network grew practically out of
nothing, developed and then shrunk ...
Too many things to take into account there.

 AS> Now
 AS> most of the technical problems are solved, people are looking around
 AS> and more concernded with "political" aspect. I wanna say that in
 AS> older times policy was less significant and more corresponding to the
 AS> moment.

I don't think it is politics. Double or triple the number of users of BBSs
and Fidomail and most of the "political" aspects will be
forgotten  ;)
It's the lack of users that makes us look at one another instead of at new users  ;)

 FD>> How many Nodes
 FD>> have gone by without even having to have rechecked policy in their
 FD>> Fido-lifetime? Ok, let's change it, right?  Or, alternatively, propose
 FD>> a whole substitution. But beware, a whole substitution will probably
 FD>> take years to draft since the whole of Fidonet would have to agree to
 FD>> it ...  This "modest" attempt has taken a full year
to be agreed upon
 FD>> ...

 AS> I'm standing for a step-by-step way.

Great. So am I. And quite a few others.

 FD>> There's still another way: storm the home of all *Cs and force them
 FD>> to agree! }};) Sorry for the black humor. However exagerated I hope
 FD>> it illustrates the point.

 AS> :-)

:)  It seems it does :)

 FD>> And whatever replaces *Cs will be other *Cs ...

 AS> I always said the *Cs are the main pain of the fidonet :-)

They can become, yes. The same way anybody can become a "boss"
instead of a list clerk or coordinator of something.
But Inet can also be considered the main pain ...  Or the users who were in
Fido because it was a new thing since they left when Fido wasn't at the top
of the wave ...

 AS> No, I don't mean we should get rid of *Cs, but they should be
 AS> destined to the technical issues only. As for political issues
 AS> they should be left to sysops and polls.

We agree on that. Though I see little political matters that a *C can get
into unless he likes playing those games.
Are SysOps concerned enough to analyse the various aspects involved?  I'm
afraid not really. If they were they would be here in this echo voicing
their opinions. I'm concerned, I asked and here I am. So are you.


 AS> Most sysops in my region are indifferent to the current amendment.
 AS> Now I'm trying to wake them up, but it is not that simple a task :-)

Ha!  Welcome aboard!  ;)   As I said above, are they really concerned about
Fido?  Is caring about Fido being political? ...

 FD>> :)    You are not alone   :)

 AS> Great to hear :-)

Want a beer.rar?  ;)

Felipe  :)

--- Fastecho 1.45/GED/Fd 2.12