Hello All!

Having read through messages in this an echo, I have understood that sysops
(and even ZCs) do not represent a situation in R50 and our referendum in
particular. Therefore I have decided to describe it in detail.


For the first time speech about creation of a separate zone for us has
arisen about 15 years ago. It proves cleanly technical reason -
inconvenience Z2MH for us, namely: our region covers time zones with GMT+3
to GMT+12 (however nodes now locate only up to GMT+10), therefore Z2MH GMT
2:30-3:30 corresponds already now in Moscow (GMT+4) to local time
6:30-7:30, that is inconvenient for the majority of house and some office
nodes.
Now this problem is solved crookedly: replacement ZMH on NetworkMH is
entered, that contradicts Policy. The significant part of sysops simply
ignores requirements ZMH (that in particular explains the big number of
nodes in R50).

There are still more some occasions to creation of the zone, for example -
difficulty of coordination of the big number of networks one person (any
expert on management will confirm an inefficiency - if not impossibility -
to operate over 150 subordinates without attraction of an intermediate link
of management and the control).

Owing to the above-stated necessity of allocation R50 for a separate zone
is clear. However the structure of a new zone and feature of a transition
period are expressed in the different points of view.

One group of sysops offers full renumbering networks (in a network nobody
attempts upon addresses of units :) ), more precisely reflecting a
geographical position of a network.
Others suggest to keep existing numbering of networks, having replaced only
number of a zone in the address, having facilitated that transition (as in
echoes addressing only 2D).
The third arranges and and so, they can change as all address (with
relinking and resigning to echoes) and only number of a zone.
The fourth consider that all necessary can achieve and within the limits of
2-nd zone.
And at last the fifth consider that anything to change is not necessary -
let FIDO itself will die :) .

Therefore also it was necessary besides the fact "needing transfer to
the zone" to define and structure of this zone (number of each of the
above-stated groups), as it has been solved by the lead referendum.


Carrying out of a referendum was entrusted to the sysop of other region -
Serguei Trouchelle 2:550/357 , Israel - which has lead it within 3 months.
All sysops R50 have been informed by netmails on a referendum, NCs have
published the information in local сисопских эхах, and its course was
shined in official regional sysop's echo. Thus, all wishing to vote were
able to do it (as Sergey accepted letters not only on routing, but also by
direct, including through the Internet). And if they have not voted that
simply because it the destiny of region is indifferent and by that have
given the right to solve the destiny to other, more active sysops.


Results of referendum such: for 3 months it is received and counted only 561 voices.
For a variant of creation of a zone with preservation of numbers of
networks of 140 voices.
For creation of a zone with full renumbering - 68 voices.
For creation of a zone by any way - 146 voices.
Against creation of a zone and the decision of problems within the limits
of Z2 - 34 voices.
Against any changes in FIDO - 173 voices.

Thus as a whole for creation of the zone 354 voices that makes 63%
interrogated have expressed. On the basis of it application IC for creation
of a new zone also has been submitted.
It has been right at the beginning informed, which actions will be
undertaken RC in case of a victory of this or that variant, as has been
undertaken by him.


I do not know, what exactly has answered Malcolm (and whether it has
answered in general). Most likely the inquiry is transferred for discussion
in ZCC, but ZCs does not know all aforesaid, and cannot pass the decision.
I ask them to consider it and to pass the positive decision under our
application.


Vladimir Donskoy.

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20060218