Hi, Felipe!

23 Nov 02 12:39, Felipe T. Dorado said to Alex Shakhaylo:

 AS>> second is USSR disinteg- ration. Both cases suited majority
 AS>> that's why they have become lagitimate after success.

 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.

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

 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.

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

I think that in all the cases we will benefit.

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

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

 AS>> A winner is not under a judgement.

 FD> Not quite. "Wars are always necessary and inevitable until after ten
 FD> years later" ...   Don't remember the author, sorry. They always are
 FD> absurd looking back.

I don't see a controverzy between the two statements :-)

 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.

Well. But take in account that at times when fido was growing the people
were carried by the process itself and by technical problems rather. Now
most of the technical problems are solved, people are looking around and
more concernded with "political" aspect. I wanna say that in older times
policy was less significant and more corresponding to the moment.

 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> ...

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

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

:-)

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

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

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

 FD>>> Look, Alex, never mind whether current practice has it not to
 FD>>> listen to your RC. His vote is what counts for the rest of us.

 AS>> He will surely vote. No need to worry.

 FD>>> Making sure he votes what the majority of SysOps in your region
 FD>>> think is the best you can do to change things, and what is
 FD>>> democratic.

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

 FD>>> I think understand your opinions and feelings and share most of
 FD>>> them. That is why I recommend the above.

 FD>>> But taking out a bolt with a hammer renders the nut useless.

 AS>> (sign) never during my fidolife I had so mixed feelings :(

 FD> :)    You are not alone   :)

Great to hear :-)

 FD> Now,
 FD> Why is it that so many SysOps there feel so left out?

How can they feel in case 90% of sysops of z2 cannot influence
Z2C election ?

 FD> Do you all really feel oppressed by the *C structure and current
 FD> policy?

I would not say 'opressed', I would say "not satisfied".

 FD> What percentage of SysOps there can read English
 FD> fluently?

Very few :( Though most of them can read and understand making
an effort.

 FD> What have they tried before embarking on a proyect for a
 FD> new P5? How is it progressing, can we have a glimpse, do they need
 FD> any help?

Most of them were not aware of P5 attempt :( Now they seem to be more
aware, but it is too late.

 FD> A mail network is for communicating, right?   Ok, let's use it.

Seems we are doing the very same thing :-)

Bye, Sinc, Alex

--- GoldED/W32 3.0.1