Hi Roy!

Monday April 24 2006, Roy Witt wrote to Vladimir Donskoy:

 VD>> I wrote about one of technical purposes of own zone - ZMH problem.

 RW> There has never been a ZMH problem in Fidonet. ZMH is rarely enforced.

But Policy4 demand ZMH!

 RW> If the sysops in R50 need to have a ZMH, set a time that suites your needs
 RW> and don't let anyone bully you into what they think it should be.

In my opinion, ZMH is necessary to replace in general with "an
operating time of node", a maximum having designated a special
nodelist flag time of the minimal congestion (load) node (for example - #XY
with any values X and Y).

 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. Unless
 RW> you're saying that people don't get up early enough to turn on their
 RW> computer and have it ready for ZMH when the hour comes. The BBSs and those
 RW> whose systems are online all the time have no room to argue that point.
 RW> Their systems are, or should be, automatic.

You don't understand me - people may (want) have incoming (or outgoing)
voice calls at this time! In your country peoples may have same phone lines
and lease one of them for FIDO only, but in our country law protect having
two phone lines on one apartment (but it may only for many money; and lots
peoples have not a phone), so we have only one phone on FIDO and voice.

 VD>> So "limit" nodes for relocate - all Russia (not Whiterussia or
 VD>> Ukraina, which have time zone UTC+2).

 RW> Here's what you can do. The RC is the only one who's going to be
 RW> contacted by the ZC during ZMH. The rest of R50 doesn't have to comply
 RW> with the ZCs ZMH, as it's none of his business. All of your NCs can comply
 RW> with the Z2Cs ZMH, or not. But all others don't have to worry about that.
 RW> They can use an hour that's convenient for them and their *C. Say
 RW> 0100-0200 local time. Then, only the RC is responsible to the ZC and the
 RW> NCs are only responsible to the RC. That leaves the whole issue as moot,
 RW> as far as the ZC is concerned. Then you set up a routing system that only
 RW> certain systems use to pass netmail to the other sysops.

This is contradictory Policy... But really we in fact make this.

You ignore other moment of ZMH - guarantee (warrant) send and receive
netmail to node (for complain purposes, for example). So route for netmail
is not guarantee this and not change to direct connections.

 VD>> I think that many our problem will decide in Z2 if Ward change his
 VD>> position

 RW> Never.

:-) so will change self Ward. He have 55 years old - go to pension! :-)

 VD>> (or if Russian will elect to Z2C),

 RW> Call for an election, but get your region to agree on one person before
 RW> you call for it. R50 outnumbers the rest of Z2, so whoever you choose is a
 RW> shoe-in.

Contradictory Policy - election ZC by RCs, not majority sysops... So region
with 1 sysop (Bjorn Felten for example) have so much votes how much our
region with 3000 sysops.

Regards, Vladimir Donskoy

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