Hi Roy!

Tuesday April 25 2006, Roy Witt wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 RW> Anyway, the rest of Fidonet no longer requires that sysops comply with
 RW> ZMH.

I ask Z2C about it.

 RW>>> If the sysops in R50 need to have a ZMH, set a time that suites your
 RW>>> needs and don't let anyone bully you into what they think it should
 RW>>> be.
 VD>> In my opinion, ZMH is necessary to replace in general with "an
 VD>> operating time of node", a maximum having designated a special
 VD>> nodelist flag time of the minimal congestion (load) node (for example
 VD>> - #XY with any values X and Y).

 RW> That's the wrong use for that flag, but I suppose anything is possible if
 RW> the need is there. Perhaps a better solution would be for your ZC to
 RW> create a nodelist flag that indicates a ZMH other than the zone's ZMH. ZMH
 RW> being the best flag for that purpose, of course.

If ZMH is outdated we can use all flags for *MH as we want.

 VD>>>> Time Z2MH is not usable not only for east but for west
of Russia -
 VD>>>> Moscow time 6:30-7:30 isn't correct for home and
particulary office
 VD>>>> nodes!
 RW>>> Well, that's not a very good arguement against your present ZMH.
 RW>>> Unless you're saying that people don't get up early enough to turn
 RW>>> on their computer and have it ready for ZMH when the hour comes. The
 RW>>> BBSs and those whose systems are online all the time have no room to
 RW>>> argue that point. Their systems are, or should be, automatic.

 VD>> You don't understand me - people may (want) have incoming (or
 VD>> outgoing) voice calls at this time!

 RW> I understood that part. You've clearly explained that only one phone line
 RW> is available, although two are also available at a high cost.

Yes, bacause high cost or absent of "technical possiblity" (that
is very large money - own Phone Station for example)...

 RW> The combination of the Thg flag (available 0730-0630 (23hours)) and a ZMH
 RW> flag, using the same Tyz schedule - ZMH:vw, indicating that your ZMH is
 RW> from 2130 to 2230 (just as an example). Your region could implement this
 RW> without a problem by placing the ZMH flag after the User flag, i.e.
 U,ZMH>: vw - no ZC aproval required, just your RC's...

Change nodelist flags can make only ZC not RC.

 VD>> Contradictory Policy - election ZC by RCs, not majority sysops...

 RW> Yes it is, but it has been done in Z1 this way. The NCs polled their nodes
 RW> and the general consensus of their nets were sent to the election
 RW> coordinator as a vote by the net. The election coordinator tallied up the
 RW> Region votes (we have 10 regions) and the candidate with the most RC votes
 RW> was chosen as the ZC.

We elected R50C by all sysops voting, by majority. So - R50C is
representative (spokesman) of all our region.

 VD>> So region with 1 sysop (Bjorn Felten for example) have so much votes
 VD>> how much our region with 3000 sysops.

 RW> This is why you want to forget about doing it according to policy and do
 RW> it as I've suggested. You'll never get anywhere going by a policy that
 RW> protects the *Cs from the sysops vote.

Therefore it is the reason for modification in the Policy.

Regards, Vladimir Donskoy

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20060326