Volume 6, Number 25 19 June 1989 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello Editors Emeritii: Dale Lovell Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings FidoNews is published weekly by the International FidoNet Association as its official newsletter. You are encouraged to submit articles for publication in FidoNews. Article submission standards are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC, available from node 1:1/1. 1:1/1 is a Continuous Mail system, available for network mail 24 hours a day. Copyright 1989 by the International FidoNet Association. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141. Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, 164 Shipley Avenue, San Francisco, CA 94107 and are used with permission. We don't necessarily agree with the contents of every article published here. Most of these materials are unsolicited. No article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally acceptable. We will publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 2 A European Response ...................................... 2 The European Situation ................................... 4 "FOOLS" in FidoNet ....................................... 8 FidoCon '89 Update ....................................... 9 Thoughts on the Nodelist ................................. 14 An April Fool joke that wasn't ........................... 22 European Autonomy and Domestic Meddlers .................. 31 3. COLUMNS .................................................. 32 The Lost FidoNet Archives - Volume 3 ..................... 32 And more! FidoNews 6-25 Page 1 19 Jun 1989 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= Hello, I'm back. Thanks to Harry Lee for assembling files and running MAKENEWS last week (and the hour or two of work that precedes and follows that). There seems to be no lack of articles about FidoNet these days. I think that's just fine. Glad to see it. Maybe a little controversy will get us all more interested in what this is all about. At the very least it will warm up the old varicose veins! This week there are a number of articles about the initiative(s) taken recently in Zone 2, two of them in response to an earler article by Daniel Tobias, and one by TJ, which addresses the issue in his usual brief but cutting fashion. There is also more material by Daniel, and by Jack Decker. Isn't there anyone else in Zone 1 who has something to say? These guys are so prolific they're putting you all to shame ... This week we're restarting the "Lost FidoNet archives" series after a one-week hiatus. We've gotten some more stuff and it should be running for a while now. On to other things: the "Current Versions" page in FidoNews has recently been accused of an unreasonable bias towards certain compression methods and computing platforms. To address this, I feel that we would have to expand this page to a relatively unreasonable length for a weekly repeat. How does everyone feel about opening this page up to a monthly section, with coverage for additional software, and for non-MSDOS systems? Finally, somewhere (I believe that it was in Daniel's article last week or so) there was some mention of turnaround in FidoNews. Basically, I try to keep a two or three week retention on stories, but if things back up I'll move more stuff. Or, if a story has particular immediate relevance, I'll try to get it right in. I know a couple of things fell by the wayside last week because I didn't notice them before I sent everything to Harry, but in general, that's the way it will work. Well, on to the rest of the newsletter. Enjoy! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 2 19 Jun 1989 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= A European Response" by John Burden 2:255/112 Reading the recent article by Daniel Tobias regarding the "European situation" was a depressing experience in that it seemed to typify some of the reasons why Europeans feel out of tune with IFNA and want a more democratic structure. Daniel seems to miss the fact that POLICY4E has been in force for 12 months in Europe without any apparent disapproval by IFNA. It is hard to know how the Europeans voted on POLICY4.06 as all we've seen reported so far are the global figures. But I'd hazard a guess that several of the NO votes were from this side of the Atlantic. (And while we're talking about votes, take a few moments to look in the current world nodelist, see how many nodes there are in total, then see how many folks actually wanted POLICY4.06 enough to say so. Did someone say 152?) Like it or not, it is a sad fact that IFNA and democracy seem not to know each other very well. If you are minded to challenge this claim, just cast your eyes on a recent copy of Fidonews and see how many (do I mean how few?) directors there are in Zone 2. Fidonet will probably always have an inbuilt American majority for many valid reasons. For that very reason I believe it is incumbent upon IFNA to ensure that there is adequate representation for zones outside zone 1, so that these zones may have a meaningful voice. Whilst I believe that Daniel's reference to a "Declaration of Independence" was tongue-in-cheek, let us carry on with that for just a few more lines. The UK has a long history of colonisation, as do many other European nations. However, except way back in the darkest days of colonialism, we *did* allow our colonies to vote AND TO HAVE SELF-GOVERNING STATUS. So, if the analogy to colonial times is relevant, so is our claim to have a meaningful voice. Unless Daniel and I have read different versions of a proposed European Fidonet policy, I think he may be mistaken when he says we want to be "not subject to overall FidoNet policy". I read it with entirely the opposite understanding, namely, that we want to be free to make our own zone policy, but subject to overall IFNA policy. What we are asking is that the overall IFNA policy should permit such self-governing at zone level. The claim that the American coordinator shouldn't have to pay long distance charges to distribute a nodelist including a lengthy list of European nodes is so far wide of the mark that it FidoNews 6-25 Page 3 19 Jun 1989 can't go unchallenged. The reality is the exact opposite (and always will be as long as North American nodes outnumber the rest), namely that here in Europe, with our higher telephone charges, we pay a LOT of money shunting an enormous US nodelist around. In his article, Daniel claimed " the Europeans ... should ... work within the system to get a POLICY4 passed that allows for wide latitude for zone policies taking into account the varied circumstances of different world regions." Well, we weren't even going so far as wanting "wide" latitude, just a bit more latitude and a bit more democracy. The idea to charge nodes a fee to operate within Fidonet in Europe is not something that Daniel is alone in finding controversial. Whilst most UK sysops are reported to be against the idea. I can see benefits in it. Personally, I don't go along with the idea that *Cs should have to dig deep all the time just to fulfil their roles effectively. OK, I know a lot of us finish up out of pocket because we're doing something we chose to do as a hobby, but that just isn't good enough if someone has to attend meetings, briefings, deputations, etc on a continental basis. This is particularly relevant in Europe at the moment, as here in the UK we have a draft Parliamentary Bill that will effectively outlaw bulletin board systems. In conclusion his article in Fidonews 623, Daniel says "I'd like to see FidoNet preserved as an international network, held together by one consistent policy statement (with some latitude allowed for local policies within the constraints of the global one). As we are asking for exactly that for Europe, it sounds as though we might still be talking the same language after all. Comments, etc to John Burden on 2:255/112. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 4 19 Jun 1989 The European Situation, an informed perspective By Ron Dwight ZC2 2:515/1 This article is my reaction to an article in FidoNews 623 by one Daniel Tobias of 1:380/7. I am disturbed that the Fidonews editorial staff would publish such an article without checking into the facts of the matter beforehand. Anyway, on with the article, my first for FidoNews. Zone 2 has been operating, quite successfully under POLICY-4E for almost 18 months. The only critisism of this, that I have read has been within the last few weeks. If other zones have been so concerned about zone 2 operating under a different policy, why have we heard nothing of this before this time? I suggest the reason is that POLICY-4E and POLICY-3 mesh so well together that there has been and will be no problem with this. As to the statement that this amounts to a "Declaration of Independance" by the European nodes, I feel this is an extreme overreaction to a statement which has NEVER BEEN MADE. The situation in zone 2 is vastly different to that in zone 1. We have many different languages and cultures to contend with. We do not have the benefit of a common regulatory system within the various PTT's and what may be perfectly legal in one country (region) may well be unlawful in another. Zone 2, Europe as you call it (wrongly), has no desire at this point in time to break away, be divided from, removed from, split apart or in any other way severed from, any of the other zones in FidoNet. Zone 2 has special needs due to it's special nature. These needs must be addressed if we are to proceed, as we ALL wish, in an orderly manner to a better FidoNet. QUOTE from Danial Tobias: As a Libertarian politically, I have no moral objection to the European nodes declaring independence from the Americans, which sort of turns the tables on the Americans who did a similar thing to Europe over 200 years ago. However, I'm not entirely thrilled with the manner in which they did it. They are claiming to be fully autonomous and self-governing, not subject to overall FidoNet policy, but yet, they still consider themselves part of the FidoNet, and are in the nodelist distributed in zones 1, 3, and 4 as well as their zone. END quote I am sorry that Mr. Tobias is "not entirely thrilled with the manner in which they did it". I repeat Mr. Tobias, it has not been done and I object in the strongest possible terms to your stating that it has. The remarks you have made here seem to be designed to fuel a fire dissention between zone 2 and the rest of FidoNews 6-25 Page 5 19 Jun 1989 FidoNet, a fire which is non-existant and totally unnecessary. QUOTE from Danial Tobias: It seems to me, if they want their full independence, they should have to leave FidoNet altogether, and become a different network like AlterNet and EggNet. Under those circumstances, they would no longer be in the FidoNet nodelist, or have the rights to the name FidoNet under Tom Jennings' license, unless they engaged in separate negotiations to secure such privileges. After all, why should the American coordinator structure pay long distance charges to distribute a nodelist including a lengthy list of European nodes, if those nodes refuse to accept the authority of the FidoNet Policy which is supposed to cover ALL zones? END quote Your reaction above seems to be due to the zone 2 rejection of the proposed POLICY (4.06). Mr. Tobias, the proposed policy document was placed for a democratic vote by the *C structure. The votes from zone 2 overwhealmingly rejected this proposal. This is democracy in action and people letting their opinions be known. I get the impression from your article that a democratic vote is ok as long as eveyone goes along with your opinion. Free speech is about people being able to express their own opinions and have that expression respected. I see absolutely no need of reactions such as, "They (zone 2) don't agree with us (zone 1) therefore they must be reactionaries and should no longer be a part of Fidonet." Forgive me if I misinterpret your article, but this is how it comes across on this side of the water. QUOTE from Danial Tobias: As for the specific elements of European policy, the most controversial one is their mandatory fee for nodes. That's the element most in conflict with existing policy, and some might argue it contravenes the general spirit of FidoNet. That more than anything else might compel European nodes to leave FidoNet, since I don't know if the rest of the network would be willing to adopt a policy permitting zones (and perhaps regions or nets) to impose mandatory charges. That would open up a real can of worms; even if it is permitted, some controls would likely be placed to prevent the possibility of profiteering NCs, RCs, or ZCs imposing excessive charges for their personal profit. END quote Please read the first sentence of the above quotation at least twice. You are stating, as a matter of record, that European policy specifically requires a mandatory fee. Could you kindly send me a copy of this "European policy" which contains such a statement? For your information and the ACCURATE information of Fidonet, no such document exists and no such document has every been written. POLICY-3 does not contain such a clause, POLICY-4E FidoNews 6-25 Page 6 19 Jun 1989 does not contain such a clause, the proposal which I have been working on and which, at this point, I alone have been working on, does not contain such a clause. Your, incorrect, statements concerning this matter are inflammatory in the extreme and excessively annoying. I just love this mention of the "Spirit of FidoNet." Where do you obtain this belief as to what FidoNet actually is? I have never seen, in any FidoNews, in an article, in any communication from TJ or in any policy, that Fidonet should be free and financially supported by the few who can afford it. I firmly believe that FidoNet provides the means for global communication but it does not provide the means for financing same. We should not allow FidoNet to bleed dry, those who would support us as this path does not lead us to future stability. For your information: At EuroCon III it was decided that an attempt should be made to establish a European organisation to benefit Fidonet in zone 2. Among other things, the folks at EuroCon III felt it would be necessary to charge a fee to every node in zone 2 in order for this organisation to operate in a successful manner. The majority of people at EuroCon III, please read that again, felt that in order to ensure the future success and stability of this organisation, the fee would have to be mandatory. There is absolutely nothing in any policy document of which I am aware which states that a zone, region, net or node must pay any fee in order to be a part of FidoNet. I sincerely believe that a mandatory fee is SIGNIFICANTLY more democratic than the way we operate at the present time due to the need for people who are willing to help finance Fidonet mearly because it is something they believe in. The present situation demands the help of organisations or somewhat wealthy individuals in order to operate the more senior positions. The post of ZC2 has already cost me more than I can really afford and that cost is expected to rise when the nodelist comes to my second system. Is it reasonable to limit the responsible posts ONLY to those that can afford them, when there is significant talent and dedication available from those who wish to see Fidonet improve. Zone 1 has already demonstrated that an organisation which has no mandatory membership fails badly. Have you ever heard of IFNA having sufficient funding to support the IC and ZC's? It was tried with Ken Kaplan and Ben Baker, but failed. The proposals and I repeat they are PROPOSALS issued from EuroCon III were for an organisation to help FidoNet and to provide some small means of financial support to keep the vital lifeblood flowing. The initial suggestion was for a fee from each and every node, but was later changed to be from each and every net. This allows a much larger degree of freedom for the collection of the required fee. I also believe that this would involve the SysOps to a greater degree in the operation and wellbeing of FidoNet. Perhaps a couple MORE examples give some food for thought: 1) The zonegate in region 30 attempted to obtain voluntary FidoNews 6-25 Page 7 19 Jun 1989 donations to keep running. It failed. 2) They also attempted to start an Echo to discuss the problem It failed also. 3) The TAP project. Voluntary contributions in NO WAY account for enough money to make it work. I will even go so far as to making the following public announcement. While I am zone coordinator of zone 2, no node will be forced to pay a mandatory fee to be a part of FidoNet unless such a payment has been previously agreed by a majority of the SysOps, who care to vote, in zone 2. In other words, in order for the European organisation to come into being with a right to collect a mandatory fee from each net, the SysOps of zone 2 must agree to this by a simple majority. I will personally organise such a referendum when more has been decided by the steering committee for the formation of the European organisation. Until such a time, it would be deeply appreciated if rumour and misinformation were not spread. QUOTE from Danial Tobias: In conclusion, I'd like to see FidoNet preserved as an international network, held together by one consistent policy statement (with some latitude allowed for local policies within the constraints of the global one). If other systems, wherever in the world they may be located, wish to carry on networking under different rules, they've got every right to do so, but they're not then part of FidoNet. END quote In conclusion, I basically agree with the above statement, except that I feel very strongly that FidoNet should adopt a truly world policy, containing little more than a definition of Fidonet, it's history and the very highest levels of it's organisation and ZMH's. It would then leave all zone specific matters to each zone, which would create similar policies and allow each region to neccessarily create it's own local policy according to it's own needs. I see little or no need for the very highest levels of FidoNet organisation to concern itself with matters pertaining to the very lowest levels. FidoNet has to work, the various componant parts have to mesh together in a friendly and co-operative manner. This is 'still' a hobby? Cheers, Ron Dwight, ZC2 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 8 19 Jun 1989 "FOOLS" in FidoNet A rebuttal for Jack Decker Mike Ratledge, 1:372/666 Jack, you know that I have really been pretty quiet lately and haven't bothered to respond to your flames, but the trash you put in last week's FidoNews regarding Pete White surely caught my eye, since you chose to dig out an eight-month old message from *me* to make your point. When Butch Walker asked me to commandeer ECHOPOL and get it to a vote right after he resigned, several things were presented to me as "givens" and not to be voted on either due to the fact that they were obvious or requirements of the ZEC/NEC system. Since I have no true authority to do any of this, except that granted by Butch which was later confirmed by David Dodell (another long story ...), I didn't really have much input on those items, beyond the fact that they were required. One of those things was the prohibition of random message delivery across regional boundaries for "backbone" echos. I know you like to pick up on things and take them under your wing as you have a personal zeal - just like me - to see the network work better. The fact of the matter is that I *could* have worded my "fools" comment better - it was certainly not addressed to Jack Decker, and perhaps I should have made that "foolish people". Another fact is that there will always be those foolish people that ignore the good of the masses and take it upon themselves to break things! And - there will always be fools like me that really *are* trying to make FidoNet a better place for us. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 9 19 Jun 1989 Les Kooyman FidoCon Program Chairperson 1:204/501 FidoCon '89 Update: Dateline Silicon Valley Planning for FidoCon continues at what is beginning to seem like a hectic pace. As we get closer and closer to the actual date of the convention, I'm sure we'll look back on this as our relaxed time! We've been successful enough at attracting speakers that current- ly we're planning on 12 rather than 8 sessions. The conference is still single-track, that is, only one session will be going on att a time. The current program listing for Fidocon '89 is as follows: 1: Tim Pozar on UFGATE 2: Vince Perriello and Bob Hartman on BinkleyTerm 3: Bob Hartman on Bix processing of FidoNet echomail 4: Phil Becker on TBBS 5: Tom Jennings on Fido 6: Chuck Forsberg on Zmodem and protocols 7: Mort Sternheim on FidoNet and IFNA 8: Chris Irwin/Joaquim Homrighausen on D'Bridge/Front Door 9: Rick Heming on Wildcat BBS software 10: OPEN 11: OPEN 12: OPEN We'll be announcing the times and dates of the sessions in July, in case you want to plan on attending a subset of the full con- ference. I would be remiss if I did not emphasize that the deadline for discount registration is quickly approaching (July 15th). Both the registration fee for the Convention itself and the hotel discount rate increase on that date. The FidoCon registration will increase from $60 to $75, and the discount hotel registra- tion will END, meaning that you will pay full price for your hotel room. So get those registrations in, folks! Please see the registration form in this issue of FidoNews for details on the way to proceed to take advantage of our discount offers. We'll accept your registration for FidoCon after July 15 at the $60 rate if you netmail your registration form to 1:1/89 (the offi- cial FidoCon '89 node) by midnight Pacific Time on July 15, and (this is IMPORTANT) your hard copy confirmation and fees reach us within 72 hours of that netmail reservation. This is important both for payments by credit card or check. You cannot, however, guarantee the discount hotel rate through netmail to 1/1:89, this must be done as described in the registration form. We've also arranged for discount automobile rentals through Alamo Rent-a-Car. To take advantage of this discount, you need to call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633 and request an automobile at the conven- FidoNews 6-25 Page 10 19 Jun 1989 tion rate. Mention FidoCon '89 and the dates of the conference at the time you request the convention rate. You must make your reservation no later than 30 days prior to the event, which means you would need to reserve your car by July 24th. All of the following rates include automatic transmission, air conditioning and radio. All of the discount rates include unlimited free mileage. Economy car (example: Geo Metro) $32 day/$109 week. Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week. Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week. Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week. Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week. Remember that you really don't have to rent a car in the San Francisco Bay area if you don't want to, public transportation is quite good. However, if you are interested in seeing as much as possible of the area and making a real vacation of it, you should consider a car, and these rates strike me as being very good. That's all for the moment... see you in San Jose! ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 11 19 Jun 1989 Some More Comments by Daniel Tobias 1:380/7 Here are a few more comments since I wrote my last article, which appeared in FidoNews 624. First of all, I somehow managed to get my own node number wrong when I asked for comments in reply (though I wrote it correctly at the head of the article). It's 380/7, not 380/2, which was the number of a system I used to run which no longer exists. I apologize for any inconvenience this caused. Remember, send all constructive comments about my article to 1:380/7. (Personal attacks, as always, should go to NUL: on MS-DOS systems, or \dev\nul on UNIX machines.) I see that POLICY4 has passed. I feel this is a good thing, even though I disagree with some elements of this policy. The rampant factionalism in FidoNet has pretty much stifled progress of any sort for several years, so I'm glad to see something moving forward, even if not in the direction I would prefer. That's better than going nowhere. The old POLICY3 had many obsolete elements, such as the lack of reference to zones, that needed to be corrected, and it is only the infighting and factionalism that prevented a POLICY4 from being enacted long ago. Now, a new policy is in effect, with a clearly-defined means by which it can be further changed; this is a good thing, and will hopefully end the stagnation and allow for significant progress in the future. Some people, I hear, are questioning the validity of the process by which POLICY4 has been ratified; while they may have some cogent arguments (after all, POLICY3 didn't give any means of amendment, and it is a circular argument to refer to POLICY4's amendment procedure to determine the correct way of enacting itself), I fervently hope that they do not press their argument to the point of leading to civil war within the net over the question of whether POLICY4 should be considered to be in effect or not. This would only lead to yet another round of infighting and backbiting, and stifle further progress for years to come. It's much better to use the means provided for POLICY5 ratification to place a new policy into effect that handles the criticisms of the present one, and that is the tack I intend to take. It appears that by present policy the only way a POLICY amendment can even legally be proposed is by the approval of a majority of the RCs. I have no idea what their reaction will be when I come out with my proposed POLICY5 document; they could suppress it by refusing to even consider it. One regrettable feature of POLICY4 is the oligarchic powers granted the RCs; they select both the ZCs and the NCs, and can suppress any consideration of POLICY change. They maintain that they're not seeking personal power, and I fervently hope they are right. If they're not seeking power FidoNews 6-25 Page 12 19 Jun 1989 for themselves, then maybe they will give consideration to amendments which will reduce their power somewhat, if presented in the context of an entire POLICY5 proposal designed to benefit FidoNet as a whole. One can hope, anyway. Some more notes on geographical exceptions: It may be relevant to consider what other organizations with geographically-defined regions and local chapters do in this regard. For instance, Mensa has regions and chapters which are defined in terms of zip-code ranges. However, members may elect to be a member of a different local chapter, and needn't get the approval of any official to do this. Maybe somebody has more loyalty to his old hometown than to the place he currently lives, or is planning on moving soon to another city and wishes to begin receiving his new town's local newsletter a few months ahead, or maybe he's just got more friends on the other side of the regional boundary than in the one to which he officially belongs. All of these are reasons somebody might choose to join a different local chapter, but at any rate, Mensa doesn't demand any reason or explanation. To the best of my knowledge, no problems have been caused by this policy. While Mensa has had its share of factionalism and disputes (not unlike FidoNet), none of them involve the making of exceptions to geography. (During one local conflict, it was suggested by a member of the losing faction that they switch their affiliation en masse to an out-of-state group which they could then outnumber the locals in and dominate its policy; however, this was never actually attempted. If it was, I don't know what national Mensa would do about it.) At any rate, it seems like organizations can allow members to join out-of-town chapters without it causing undue problems. Some exception might need to be made to prevent blatant political tactics (like excommunicated nodes rejoining the nodelist in a different region, coordinators signing up all of their out-of-town friends to enhance their power in FidoNet politics, etc.), but in general I see nothing wrong with a node being allowed to join where its sysop feels he fits best, even if it doesn't conform to his strict geographical place. Such arrangements should be between the sysop and his net coordinator (or region coordinator if an independent node), with other coordinators only being allowed to butt in if some clear harm is being done to FidoNet by that particular geographical exception. (e.g., if it imposes excessive costs on other nodes, or assists the node involved in bypassing POLICY in some manner.) At any rate, once I write up a POLICY5 proposal, I'll make it available for file-request on my system, and publish excerpts from it in FidoNews. (I won't send the whole thing here, since that would make for a very massive FidoNews, and most of the text will probably be the same as POLICY4 anyway. I'll just send in the major changes, and let you FidoNews 6-25 Page 13 19 Jun 1989 request the file from me if you want to examine the whole thing.) Then, the next step will be to try to find people who agree with my proposals, and see if I can get the RCs to place it on the table for consideration. I don't know what extent of lobbying is needed to accomplish this, but I'll find out as I go along. If the RCs turn out to be dead set against any amendment that cuts their power (such as providing some bottom-up democracy, adding a way of proposing POLICY changes that bypasses the RCs, and reducing RC authority over geographical exemptions), it could prove necessary to rally large masses of grunt sysops and NCs in support of the amendment to convince the RCs to change their minds. Anyway, input from any concerned sysop is encouraged. I've already gotten some feedback (despite the wrong address given). One point raised by a couple of people is that it would be better to let separate policy amendments be voted on individually instead of as a whole document. That will take a little thought; due to the interrelatedness of the whole document, it's hard to make piecemeal changes without revising the whole thing. But maybe something can be worked out; for instance, two separate methods of amendment, one to make sweeping changes by proposing an entire revised document, and another (simpler) method to propose minor revisions via a list of specific changes referenced by paragraph number. What do others think about this? ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 6-25 Page 14 19 Jun 1989 Jack Decker Fidonet 1:154/8 LCRnet 77:1011/8 Do you wonder why, if this is supposed to be a hobby and we're all supposed to be having fun, that sometimes it seems like we're all in the middle of a raging civil war? Do you ever wonder if we really need the layers of bureaucracy, and pages of Policy that are part of Fidonet? Do you ever wish that we could all just communicate and have a good time and forget all the politics? Then don't skip the following article... THOUGHTS ON THE NODELIST We're all familiar with the Fidonet nodelist. When we first start out in Fidonet, we need to obtain a copy in order to communicate with other Fidonet nodes. Thereafter, we need to apply weekly nodediffs to keep it current. Many of us have automated our batch files so that when a new nodediff shows up, our systems automatically process it to create the latest nodelist, without us having to even think about it (much to the chagrin of the nodelist creators, who would like us to read the comments that often appear at the front of the nodediffs). For that reason, we rarely stop to think about the role the nodelist plays in Fidonet. But let's consider some things about the nodelist. First, what is it, really? Reduced to its simplest level, it's just a directory of nodes using compatible software to exchange mail packets. In that respect, it's much like a telephone directory. In fact, by comparing the nodelist with a telephone directory, we can come perhaps come up with some new ways of thinking about the nodelist. A telephone directory lists "nodes" (businesses and residences) that have compatible equipment (telephones) that can be used for communication. Now, there are different types of telephone directories. There are the directories published by the telephone companies, which list anyone with a telephone who wants to be listed. But there are also private telephone directories. For example, many organizations publish directories of their members. In order to have your phone number listed in a particular organization's directory, you have to be a member of the organization. Some churches publish directories of their members. In order to be listed in their directories, you have to be a member (or in some cases, just a regular attendee) of that church. The Fidonet nodelist, and indeed, all the "other" net nodelists, are also private directories. There is not, at the present time, a nodelist that will list any node that runs Fidonet-compatible hardware and software, regardless of whether or not they wish to be affiliated with the Network publishing the nodelist. This is an important distinction. At the present time, all nodelists are published by a Network, whether FidoNews 6-25 Page 15 19 Jun 1989 it be Fidonet, Alternet, Eggnet, LCRnet, etc. These Networks only publish the listings of individual "Nets" and nodes that have affiliated with that Network. There is no "public" nodelist that will publish the listing of any "Net" or node, regardless of which Network that "Net" is affiliated with. Why do people want to be listed in the telephone directory in the first place? It's so others can communicate with them. If someone knows your name, and the city you live in, they can look in the directory (or get the Directory Assistance operator to do it) and find out everything they need to communicate with you (your phone number). You can choose to remain unlisted in the directory, but then only those who already know how to communicate with you will be able to do so. Much the same is true of a nodelist listing. There are situations where nodes exist that can be reached (either directly or through a Net somewhere), but because they aren't listed in the nodelist, only those who know about those nodes can reach them. In Fidonet, there's the additional problem that some pieces of software (e.g. Opus 1.03b) will refuse to send messages to nodes not listed in the nodelist. So, not being listed in the nodelist can make your node virtually unreachable to everyone except those who already know how to go about getting mail to you. Now a word about copyrights (if you couldn't care less about them, feel free to skip this and the next two paragraphs). The telephone directory is copyrighted. So is the Fidonet nodelist. But, in both cases it is what is known as a "compilation copyright". A "compilation" is the act of taking individual pieces of information, which individually may or may not be in the public domain, and collecting and publishing them in one single work. Even though the individual pieces of information may not be copyrighted, the collection of those pieces of information is copyrightable. You may have seen collections of "public domain" software programs on diskettes. The individual programs are still public domain, but the collection of programs on that disk may be copyrighted. If the disk is copyrighted under a "compilation copyright", then you are still perfectly free to give away individual programs from that disk to others, but legally, you can't just start making full disk copies of that disk and start selling them for profit. Your name and telephone number are not copyrighted. But, the telephone directory IS copyrighted. No one can simply photocopy the pages out of the phone book, place them in their own directory, and start selling that. In fact, they can't even simply re-type the listings out of the phone directory into the pages of their directory. So, you may ask, how do all those "alternative" and "area-wide" phone directories manage to publish without being the targets of lawsuits initiated by the phone company? In one of two ways... either they buy the listings (and the rights to re-publish them) from the phone company, or they obtain the listings by some means other than by copying them from the directory. For example, they could do FidoNews 6-25 Page 16 19 Jun 1989 door-to-door canvassing, asking each resident for their name and phone number. If they obtain the names, addresses, and phone numbers through independent means, without simply copying them from the telephone company's directory, then they can publish them without any legal liability even though many of the listings will probably duplicate those in the telephone directory. The information on your BBS that you provide to your Net Coordinator for inclusion in the Fidonet nodelist is not copyrighted. In fact, the nodelists for each individual "Net" in Fidonet are not copyrighted. When the Net Coordinator sends them to the RC, they do not bear a copyright notice (at least not in any Net that I'm aware of, though it's possible that some individual Nets do place a compilation copyright on their Net nodelists). Your NC could just as easily send the same list to someone who publishes a list of local BBS's in your city (and that often happens). It's only when the listings are collected into the complete Fidonet nodelist, and the "compilation copyright" is attached, that the listings become copyrighted. If someone gathers information on individual nodes in a Net, or even if they get the entire nodelist for a single Net from the NC (assuming the Net's nodelist is not copyrighted, or that they obtain permission to use it), they can include those listings in a larger nodelist without violating the Fidonet nodelist copyright. Once again, the key is that the listings were gathered by independent means, not simply copied from the Fidonet nodelist. Now, there is one big difference between the telephone directory and the Fidonet nodelist. Your telephone directory listing is never used for disciplinary purposes. If you make obscene phone calls, you might go to jail, but as long as are connected to the telephone system you have the right to be listed in the phone book. If you hurl a letter to the branch manager of your local telephone company that contains nasty insults, he may get quite upset with you, but unless he wants to face the wrath of his employers and the Public Utilities Commission of your state (not to mention the possibility of a nasty lawsuit), he had better not retaliate by deleting your listing from the telephone directory. But in Fidonet, your nodelist listing can be cut for disciplinary reasons. The reason is because, as pointed out above, the Fidonet nodelist is really a private nodelist. It's not so much that you are being dropped from the nodelist as that you are being dropped as a member of Fidonet (for all practical purposes, they are one and the same). Now we come to the whole point of this discussion. The main reason that many sysops have joined Fidonet in the first place was so that their systems could be listed in Fidonet's telephone directory, which as it happens is (at the present time) the largest such listing of compatible systems around. Some sysops might say that they joined to get echomail, but that can also be seen as a function of being listed in the FidoNews 6-25 Page 17 19 Jun 1989 nodelist, because if the nearest source of echomail is listed only in the Fidonet nodelist, and uses only the Fidonet nodelist as his system's "phone book", then you have to be listed in that same "phone book" before that system can send echomail to you, and you yourself will have to use that "phone book" to send echomail to him. What I suspect is that many of you that are sysops didn't realize at the time you joined Fidonet was that you were not just signing up to be listed in the nodelist, you were also joining a private organization. You were joining an organization that imposes rules on the conduct of its members, and that disciplines members that don't follow the rules by removing them from the organization's telephone directory. Not only that, but you were joining an organization in which the members have little or no say in the formulation or enforcement of the rules. You were joining an organization that had a certain philosophy on how sysops within the net should be "governed" (in my humble opinion, a philosophy that would be right at home in the government of countries like Panama or Communist China). What I hear from a lot of Fidonet sysops is, "Hey, I joined Fidonet so that I could communicate with other systems, get my echomail, and have some fun. I didn't join to have the leaders of some organization tell me how to run my system!" And if you stop and think about it, that's really the truth. I'd guess that fully 90% of the sysops in Fidonet really don't care what happens at the higher levels of Fidonet, except when it directly affect them. When you get right down to it, their MAIN reason for joining Fidonet was to get into the Fidonet nodelist, so that they could send and receive echomail and (in fewer cases) netmail. The truth is that most sysops really don't give a you-know-what about Fidonet as an organization (particularly at any level above that of their own Net)... they just want to be in the Fidonet "phone book" (which will in turn allow them to send and receive echomail). This is not a happy situation from either the point of view of the *C structure or the common sysop. The *C structure would like to "run a tight ship", with an organization of like-minded sysops all pulling together toward the same goals. They are visibly distressed by the "apathy" they see in Fidonet, and even more upset by those sysops who challenge the current structure. On the other hand, the average sysop either ignores or resents the attempts to impose "structure" or "discipline" on him or his system. He just wants to communicate and have fun! So we have an organization divided against itself, and like a nation divided against itself, such an organization cannot stand for long. If you still have trouble understanding this, let me try and paint a mental scenario that might help. Suppose you have a club of people who collect stamps. The club directors, in an effort to make the hobby more interesting, start showing films about the countries and people behind the stamps, and in order FidoNews 6-25 Page 18 19 Jun 1989 to boost attendance at their club meetings, they advertise these films in the local newspaper. And it works! Attendance increases by a phenomenal amount in the following year. But, it soon becomes apparent that most of the new members of the club aren't really interested in collecting stamps... they're interested in viewing travel films! And now, some of them are starting insist that the directors of the club devote the majority of the meetings to viewing travelogues, and to spend relatively little time on stamp collecting business, which they consider boring and not too relevant to their interests. Obviously, that club has a problem! The leaders and some of the old time members have much different expectations for the club than the newer members, who are now in the majority. A similar situation exists in Fidonet. You might say that Fidonet is a victim of its own success. The leaders and some of the long-time members of Fidonet have one set of goals, while the newcomers (many of whom were attracted by the fact that Fidonet had the largest "phone book" of compatible system with which they could exchange echomail and netmail) in many cases have a completely different vision of what Fidonet should be. Is either group totally in the wrong? Not really. Going back to the stamp club example, the old timers would argue that it was a stamp club in the beginning, and the newcomers are trying to change its original intent, while the newcomers would argue that they're simply asking for more of the very thing that the leaders used to attract them to the club in the first place! In the club example, the smart thing to do might be to start a travel club for those interested in viewing the travelogues, and get the stamp club back to its original purpose. But if the leaders of the stamp club can't stand to let go of the members that just aren't interested in stamps... if they figure they can't afford to lose the dues money, or they perceive that they will lose power if the membership splits, or they figure it's super impressive to others to be able to say they're the leaders of the largest stamp club in the state, or if they take the attitude that "these new members should like stamps, and if we try hard enough we can force 'em to take an interest in stamps whether they want to or not!", they're going to have REAL problems. Eventually the leaders may wind up being replaced by folks who don't really care about stamps at all, but only after a long, bitter, and divisive struggle! Hopefully, I won't have to explain the parallels between the above example and what's happening in Fidonet. The thing that I think we have all lost sight of is that the vast majority of systems that have come into Fidonet in the last couple of years have been attracted to the network by the availability of echomail. I would even daresay that most sysops see echomail as a low cost alternative to commercial services such as CompuServe or Genie. That is the main reason most of the newer sysops joined Fidonet. Small wonder, then, that they are by and large unimpressed with actions that are primarily intended to facilitate the movement of netmail (or to achieve some other FidoNews 6-25 Page 19 19 Jun 1989 nebulous goals), particularly when those actions have the result of increasing their costs to receive echomail. What is the solution for Fidonet? I know a lot of people won't like this thought (particularly those in the present *C structure), but I feel the only real, workable solution (and the only one that will allow Fidonet to return to its original intent, as the *C structure seems to desire) is to return Fidonet to a smaller group of like-minded sysops with common goals (I've actually read the comments of some *C's who have said that they believe things were much better in Fidonet when there were only a couple of hundred nodes. If that's what they REALLY want, let's let them return to those happy times!). Everyone else should be listed in a new, public nodelist that is not controlled by any individual Network, but rather that is open to all "Nets" and the nodes in those Nets. I hope to have a proposal for such a nodelist ready for distribution within a short time (it's in the draft stage now, I'm just waiting to get back some initial comments). Fidonet would still have its own nodelist, of folks who belong to Fidonet and who agree to submit to the rules and regulations of Fidonet. Ditto for "AnyOtherNet." But the sysops and NC's of local "Nets" could choose to affiliate with one of the major Networks, or with no Network at all. As long as they are listed in the "public" nodelist, they will still be able to receive mail from other systems, and to exchange echo conferences that are not "restricted" to just one Network. The nodelist would not be used for disciplinary purposes. If you have problems with another node, you configure your system to refuse mail from that node (using password protection or similar methods) or in extreme cases you could call in the authorities, as you'd do with an obscene telephone caller. Keep in mind that RIGHT NOW anyone can configure their system to "impersonate" another node, so dropping someone from the nodelist in no way guarantees that you'll never hear from them again! Now, I ask you to please pay careful attention to the following, because I know that those who oppose this idea will try to claim that it would break up Fidonet. However, the fact that a Net chooses to be listed in a "public" nodelist would NOT necessarily mean that they are leaving Fidonet (unless the Fidonet *C's decide to make it an either/or choice). It would simply give you, as a sysop, the alternative to communicate with other nodes without HAVING to subscribe to any particular denominational viewpoint on how a network should be run. The various Network nodelists could be viewed in the same way as church member directories, in that they would presumably contain the listings of those who adhere to a particular set of beliefs (on how a network should be operated in this case). The "public" nodelist would list all Nets (that choose to be listed)... those that do choose to align themselves with a particular operational philosophy, and those that do not. I've never heard of a church giving a member the boot because they allowed themselves to be listed in the "public" phone book, so FidoNews 6-25 Page 20 19 Jun 1989 unless the Fidonet *C structure wants to be more authoritarian than even the strictest of sects, they will not try to discourage Fidonet sysops from being listed in the "public" nodelist. If the *C structure were smart, they'd even encourage those who don't really adhere to their operational philosophy to be listed in the "public" nodelist only. I don't mean they'd only do that when a Net becomes an irritant to a particular *C, either. What I mean is that once a public nodelist were available, it might be wise for the *C structure to really lay out their philosophy and say "if you can't agree with this, you really shouldn't be here." Some *C's are saying this NOW, but the problem is that in most cases, there's no other viable place for a Net to go to (in many cases the choice is between staying in Fidonet, or aligning your Net with another Network that may have some equally objectionable policies, or trying to start your own Network, none of which are particularly attractive alternatives). One other point that needs to be mentioned is that there are no guarantees that the Fidonet nodelist will continue to be published. If the *C structure of Fidonet decides that they have lost "control" of Fidonet, or if the people in charge of publishing the Fidonet nodelist simply get tired of doing it, there's no absolute guarantee that it will continue to be published. Should something like that happen, wouldn't it be nice to have a "public" nodelist available? When I originally let this idea out to a few people, one of the comments I got back was on the order of "but how will we get echomail?" My answer is, "for the present time, the same way you get it now." People tend to want to view this as an either/or situation... EITHER you're in the Fidonet nodelist, OR you're in SomeOther nodelist. That does not necessarily have to be the case. Consider the situation where you have a Net that has a couple of nodes that the RC just doesn't like, for any of a number of reasons (maybe they just happen to be on the wrong side of some geographic boundary line). Now, in the Fidonet nodelist, that Net could be listed, but without the offending nodes. However, that same Net could be listed in the "public" nodelist intact, with all its nodes (in most cases, it could even be listed under the same Net number as it uses in Fidonet if things are planned correctly). In such a case, it would still be "legal" for any of the Fidonet nodes to receive echomail from the Regional Echomail Coordinator, and if they pass it on to one of the nodes that doesn't appear in the Fidonet nodelist, chances are nobody will notice or complain anyway - but if someone does, it could always be argued that those systems are "points" for Fidonet purposes (after all, they don't appear in the Fidonet nodelist, so they must be points, right? And in Fidonet, you can send echomail to a point system no matter where it's located, since points are not bound by any sort of geographic restrictions). If the "public" nodelist idea really catches on, though, I FidoNews 6-25 Page 21 19 Jun 1989 expect that many REC's might eventually consider modifying their policies to accommodate the "public" nodelist (although not without some initial "kicking and screaming"; change never seems to come easily in this hobby!). Please keep in mind that the Echomail Coordinators are not part of the *C structure, and in many cases do not really have a vested interest in perpetuating that structure. What I have tried to give to sysops here is a simple way to break the stranglehold that the RC/ZC power structure has on our ability to communicate with each other. It's not that I'm anti-Fidonet (an accusation I fully expect to hear sooner or later), but I am against the non-democratic, "top-down", dictatorial power structure that we now have. I see a lot of similarities between the present Fidonet power structure and the ruling governments in certain countries where Fidonet nodes aren't permitted. It appears that Zone 2 (Europe) has decided to, for all practical purposes, pull out of what we think of as "Fidonet" and form their own democratic organization (actually, I'm quite surprised that they're allowed to remain in the Fidonet nodelist... if a Region or Net in the United States did the same thing, I'm sure they would be summarily dismissed from Fidonet. But I guess the IC will overlook infractions at the Zone level that would never be tolerated at the Region or Net levels). While I agree wholeheartedly with Zone 2's desire for a more democratic form of government, I do *NOT* agree with the "nodelist tax" they have decided to impose on each node in order to be listed in the nodelist. A "public" nodelist would not help support a "top-down" governmental structure, and it would give nodes a place to be listed without the requirement of a "nodelist tax", so in effect it's the best of both worlds. I don't expect everyone to agree with these ideas. I fully expect they will be somewhat controversial. But, if the Fidonet *C's really want to have a network of 5,000 nodes, then they are going to have to learn to accept the wishes of the majority of the 5,000, not just the will of the twenty or thirty in leadership positions (above the Net level) or even the will of just the few hundred that may have been around since the very early days of Fidonet. On the other hand, if what they would prefer is to have fewer nodes but ones that support their philosophy, then having a separate "public" nodelist would allow that to happen without cutting off anyone's ability to communicate. I feel that unless something is done to resolve the current conflicts between those with differing ideas on where Fidonet should be headed, we're going to continue to have the equivalent of "civil war" here in Fidonet. And that sure isn't FUN for anybody! ----------------------------