Hello Janis.

22 Nov 02 23:13, you wrote to me:

 >> Thank you for seeing reason on this, Janis. It's good to know that at
 >> least ou ZC recognizes the need to treat all nodes in this network
 >> equally; and maybe that's got something to do with why Zone 1 is
 >> finally growing again while Zone 2 continues to shrink.

 JK> I'm not sure where the logic comes from that has the problem.. I look
 JK> at the internet nodes as using different protocols, just as if they
 JK> had some state-of-the-art modem that didn't use telephone lines.  YES,
 JK> they are reachable 24/7 if they have a static domain, and YES, just
 JK> like connecting two modems, you have to match somewhere in the modem
 JK> protocols.. or else you end up with the kinds of problems I remember
 JK> when I tried to connect to  a Zycell modem with my Courier (no can do
 JK> ).  Did we force the Zycell modems to be listed as Pvt? Of course
 JK> we didn't.. same with internet nodes.. Anyone can connect to an
 JK> internet node if they have an internet account.

No one seems to see the harm and confusion that is caused when you apply
two meanings to one flag, based on the connection method. It causes a class
system to be imposed on the nodelistings, and makes it hard to discern
exactly who is /truly/ Pvt and who is not. Those are the main reasons why
the Pvt kludge should be done away with; because all nodes need to be
treated equally, and every flag has to have one set meaning, and one only,
so that everyone can understand and be on the same page when reading the
nodelist.

 >> I've given up on the FTSC ever "seeing the light" on this issue.
 >> If you look a some of the comments I'm getting while trying to
 >> get this point across in the FTSC_PUBLIC echo, there doesn't seem
 >> much hope for moving forward with the FTS as our guide. I could
 >> be wrong, and I hope I am; but the old prejudices and stubborn
 >> attitudes to not change the way ION's are treated seem to be
 >> deeply rooted in those who are pursuing FTSC membership.

 JK> Well, you never know.  I see a number of the candidates are ION (at
 JK> least I think there are some) :)

Well, since I wrote this, I've seen several new names come up for
nomination, and I've seen some of the candidates express a more open minded
view on the nodelist, so there might be some hope yet.

 >> Did you see my Fidonews article proposing a "Fidonet Society"?
 >> I'm going to create a web site and try my best to promote the
 >> idea, and see if it grows. It may start out as a small thing, but
 >> eventually it may do some real good in helping to move Fidonet in
 >> a forward direction. Membership will be open to any *C, any mail
 >> hub, and any developer, past or present, of Fidonet software.

 JK> No, I didn't read the snooze this week but I will.  The idea is a good
 JK> one.. When you get people together brainstorming, often you'll come up
 JK> with good ideas....

That's the main idea. The more people join it, the more thoroughly new
ideas can be discussed for their merits, and if a large body of
representatives from the /whole/ network decide that some idea is worthy of
consideration as a standard, or that what was considered a standard in the
past is no longer considered one, then it would carry a lot more legitimacy
than if a small committee made these decisions.

I would look to it as something that the FTSC would work hand in hand with.
Ideally, The FTSC would forward all new proposals to the IFS, and the IFS
would communicate to the FTSC, which out of those proposals it feels is
most important to elevate to standard status, and also would communicate to
the FTSC what needs to be changed from past usages. The FTSC would then
have a clear direction and clear goals to work towards, and would not have
to sort through dozens of proposals and decide which ones have the most
merit.


--- GoldED/386 3.0.1-dam3