Hola Alex  :)

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

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

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

 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 democratic.
 AS> I saw nobody to object these statements.

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

Unfortunately, and to my limited knowledge in tecnical matters, IP
technology relies on itself and does not need any help from FTN technology.
Nor the other way round. Both are self supporting and have autonomy. That's
the trouble, from a certain point of view they are self-excluding.
IONs, web editors, and email _do not_ need Fidonet.  Why insist on using
even the name when everything can be done through IP technology?
BBSs, msg editors, netmail and echomail does not _really_ need Inet. But it
is convenient for some things, especially for speeding up traffic and doing
away with sharecost.
They could go their own way or we could try and bring them together leaving
Fido philosophy intact. For me this last point is a _must_. Trow the whole
of the policy and its old spirit out the window and I'll forget about Fido
and embrace Inet wholeheartedly (with pros and cons).

 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 users of
 FD>> BBSs and Fidomail and most of the "political" aspects will be
 FD>> forgotten  ;) It's the lack of users that makes us look at one another
 FD>> instead of at new users  ;)

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

;)  Probably ;)   Please remember that we live in different parts of the
world and that we communicate through a language neither of us dominate
well enough. So we probably mean the same thing but fail to convey it for
the other to understand :)   But it seems we agree  :)

 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 are
 AS> responsible for everything, they are responsible for the shrinking
 AS> of the fidonet and for the policy hadn't been changed ! :-)

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

 AS> Hm .. I wanted to say that it was a joke, but then realized it was
 AS> completely valid statement.

I'm afraid it is  :(    Yes, Coordinators are expected to promote and
expand their nets and the user base. If not explicitly laid down in Policy
it is the logical thing to do. And by barring, or ignoring, any attempt at
changing policy to adapt the network to new developments they have failed
to enhance and update it. Yes, it is a way to look at it.

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

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

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

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

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

 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.

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

 AS> I'm not *C and have never been the one :-)

I'll correct myself, not "little" but _few_ up there :(   Not the
same thing ;)
But I meant SysOp not *C, eh?
How many Nodes out of the total 9 odd thousand do care about the network and Policy?

 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 concerned
 FD>> about Fido?  Is caring about Fido being political? ...

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

There you are. Yes they blame policy, yes they blame coordinators and such,
but, __do they do anything really effective to change Policy?__  __Do they
point out exactly what the Coordinator is doing wrong according to the
policy he/she pledged to honour when he offered to serve the network?__
No?  Then their opinions are like complaints between queue neighbours ... 
or arguments at a bar ..., or like soccer discussions ... ---> sterile
reasonings that go nowhere.  A lot of blah, blah, blah, but no real
commitment to the network.
If previous *Cs did not see enough pressure fron Nodes to change Policy,
why should they have stuck their necks out for the ones who only talked,
and talked, and talked? ...

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

 FD>> Want a beer.rar?  ;)

 AS> Prosit ! :-)

­Salud!   :)


Felipe  :)

--- Fastecho 1.45/GED/Fd 2.12