Hello Bj”rn,


 >    The sooner we, in fidonet, start realizing, that P4 never
 > was meant to have Bible study classes upon it, but rather as a
 > guideline, that is only supposed to assist everyone, pointing
 > in the right direction when searching advice, the sooner we
 > can start working together, keeping our network alive.

Plus that P4 was not written by professionals with infinite wisdom and the
ability to look into the future, but by a bunch of amateurs that overlooked
things and who were not clarvoyant.

They obviously overlooked that FidoNet might not only grow, biut someday
decline again as well.

It says things about new nets, new regions ane new zones, but nthing about
what to do when a net, zone or region looses but one or two members.

 >    Whatever happened to "common sense" or "act for the best of
 > fidonet"?

Common sense tells us that the sensible thing to do in times of decline is
to cut back on the hierarchy.

Nets, regions or zones that have to few members left to function as a unit
should be merged with neighbouring adminstrative units. Singlke sysop nets,
regionsor zones are not in the best interest of Fidonet as a whole.

Also obvious is that the makers of P4 never foresaw a situation where there
was such an unequality between the zones (and regions). It is a mystery to
me how anyone can say in all honesty that a system where an administrative
unit of three members has the same say as another one with 6000 members is
fair in any way.

 > I know those exact wordings are not in P4 either,
 > does that mean we do not have to care about things like that?

We should, but obviously the *C hats are more important than the greater
good of Fidonet. Commons sense says that we have an army with FAR too many
generals. But no one except a few rationalists in this neck of the woods
will merge nets, regions or zones because that would mean less *C
positions...

Cheers, Michiel

---