Hola Felipe!

27 Nov 02 19:52, Felipe T. Dorado said to Alex Shakhaylo:

 FD> Hola Alex  :)

 FD> Wednesday November 27 2002 00:39, Alex Shakhaylo decˇa a Felipe T.
 FD> Dorado:

 AS>> Some things can be taken in account right now. Fidonet should be
 AS>> more open to the new technologies and it should be more
 AS>> democratic. I saw nobody to object these statements.

 FD> Ok, I don't really see Fidonet that closed to the so called "new
 FD> technologies". Many nodes are already IP only and many more are on the
 FD> way to become so. However, due to this new ways of connecting you'll
 FD> agree that the poor soul who has been paying up his phone bills for
 FD> years, dedicating a machine exclusively for Fido and racking his
 FD> brains out with configs for so long, must feel a bit left out and
 FD> frustrated that practically anybody nowadays can do in a day what took
 FD> him months or years to accomplish by older methods. I think we need
 FD> understandig of both positions, from _both_ points of view.

I hope I understand both positions,  because I've started as a classic
fidonet node. Just three years have passed since I've added to my node
ip compatability. And now all of my uplinks are ip, and only downlinks
and points are POTS.

 FD> Unfortunately, and to my limited knowledge in tecnical matters, IP
 FD> technology relies on itself and does not need any help from FTN
 FD> technology. Nor the other way round. Both are self supporting and have
 FD> autonomy. That's the trouble, from a certain point of view they are
 FD> self-excluding.

Hm .. I would say they are complementary to each other .)

 FD> IONs, web editors, and email _do not_ need Fidonet.
 FD> Why insist on using even the name when everything can be done through
 FD> IP technology? BBSs, msg editors, netmail and echomail does not
 FD> _really_ need Inet.

Yes. But the fidonet is very complex phenomena, it is not only a transport
technology, it is also RPG, religion, hobby, safety-valve and anything you
want. The soul of the fidonet is in people and relations between them, not
in the details of communication protocols.

 FD> But it is convenient for some things, especially
 FD> for speeding up traffic and doing away with sharecost.

For me it is also the only acceptable way to have international links.
International phone call does cost $1-5 a minute here, depending on a
destination. It is far too expensive to be affordable :(

 FD> They could go
 FD> their own way or we could try and bring them together leaving Fido
 FD> philosophy intact.

Are you sure you have catched the Fido philosophy ? :-)
The far the less I do understand this philosophy 

 FD> For me this last point is a _must_. Trow the whole
 FD> of the policy and its old spirit out the window and I'll forget about
 FD> Fido and embrace Inet wholeheartedly (with pros and cons).

No, we need to change just a few of the techninal moments and to legalize
the sprouts of democracy that are already used de-facto. The policy itself
is not so bad to be changed completely.

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

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

 AS>> Isn't it the same I have said ? :-)

 FD> ;)  Probably ;)   Please remember that we live in different parts of
 FD> the world and that we communicate through a language neither of us
 FD> dominate well enough.

You are right. But the words are just a part of communication, something
goes between the lines and this helps to understand the things that were
not properly expressed with the words :-)

 FD> So we probably mean the same thing but fail to
 FD> convey it for the other to understand :)   But it seems we agree  :)

It does seem :-)

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

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

 FD>>> They can become, yes.

 AS>> No, they are ! As long as according to the current policy they
 AS>> are responsible for everything, they are responsible for the
 AS>> shrinking of the fidonet and for the policy hadn't been changed !
 AS>> :-)

 FD> Ah, I see now.  That is indeed another facet of the matter.

I wanna say a power is always accompanied by a responsibility, and
it seems you've got me completely right. beer.rar, hSalud :-)

 AS>> Well, there is not much sence now in blaming anybody, we need to
 AS>> move forward.

 FD> Right. The previous reasoning was just analysing things postmortem
 FD> };D

Yeah .. We don't need one more of the Nuremberg processes. Do we ? :-)

 FD>>> be considered the main pain ...  Or the users who were in Fido
 FD>>> because it was a new thing since they left when Fido wasn't at
 FD>>> the top of the wave ...

 AS>> Yes. This is completely true. And you've forgotten to note the
 AS>> technical complexity of the FTN system managing.
 AS>> Windows-PnP-one-touch technology steals a lot of potential users
 AS>> and sysops.

 FD> I didn't want to even mention a certain widespread graphic system that
 FD> I think makes people lazy ...   No, forget it, I won't waste time
 FD> talking about it. But I see your point.

I have mised one word. I meant "...-like" technologies ..

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

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

 AS>> But at the same time they spend a lot of time flaming about
 AS>> fidonet policy, blaming coordinators, and fighting between
 AS>> themselves about what is good and what is bad for the fidonet :-)

 FD> There you are. Yes they blame policy, yes they blame coordinators and
 FD> such, but, __do they do anything really effective to change Policy?__

Can they really do it ? Those, that can, are confused by the very poor
chances for changes to pass, and those,  that are enthusiastic, cannot
present thoughtful changes. Under the conditions of the fidonet monarchy
initiative should be invoked by the upper level coordinators and also
it should be supported at an every step of the process.

 FD> And the above does not mean they are to be ignored, no. I think their
 FD> opinions have to be taken into account. But one thing is doing that
 FD> and a very different matter doing what many say has to be done but
 FD> they themselves will not move a finger to do it or put their name
 FD> under a proposal. Holy cow, one isn't that dumb!

Give them a REAL possibility and they will surely use it.

Bye, Sinc, Alex

--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1