Volume 8, Number 5 4 February 1991 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | FidoNet (r) | | \ \\ | | International BBS Network | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief: Vince Perriello Editors Emeritii: Thom Henderson, Dale Lovell Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings Copyright 1991, Fido Software. All rights reserved. Duplication and/or distribution permitted for noncommercial purposes only. For use in other circumstances, please contact Fido Software. FidoNews is published weekly by and for the Members of the FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System. It is a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors or authorized agents of the authors. The contribution of articles to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors. 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. Fido and FidoNet are registered trademarks of Tom Jennings of Fido Software, Box 77731, San Francisco CA 94107, USA and are used with permission. Opinions expressed in FidoNews articles are those of the authors and are not necessarily those of the Editor or of Fido Software. Most articles are unsolicited. Our policy is to publish every responsible submission received. Table of Contents 1. EDITORIAL ................................................ 1 While I Was Out .......................................... 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 3 Who Runs the Show? ....................................... 3 ZEC Questionaire Response - Tony Davis ................... 6 ZEC Questionaire Response - Amnon Nissan ................. 11 ZEC Questionaire Response - Dean Lachan .................. 13 ZEC Questionnaire Response - Butch Walker ................ 15 Censoring news in the 'Information Age' .................. 19 ZEC Questionaire Response - John Roberts ................. 21 A NETWORK FOR MATERIEL MANAGERS .......................... 28 And more! FidoNews 8-05 Page 1 4 Feb 1991 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= Hello, folks. I'd just sit back and let this week's FidoNews do its magic, but it happens that there are several things which I need to bring to your attention. First of all, I've changed the system which I am using as a collection and routing point for 1:1/1. This change has been made primarily because the old system was getting the worst of a battle with the telephone company regarding line quality. You know the story. In any event, we've changed over and the new entry has already appeared in this week's Z1 nodelist segment. Until we're fairly certain that all segments have been updated we'll try to keep the other system up-to-date and will collect submissions received there. This business of using another person's system to do my "dirty work" has been a moby nuisance. However, I expect to be addressing this issue in about a month as I am finally going to install a data line here and put up my own inhouse public access system again. I'll keep you posted on that. I received some netmail from an old friend who was concerned about the article we printed last week regarding a BBS-oriented publication. He felt that it might not be entirely appropriate to print what amounts to an advertisement in FidoNews, which is distributed gratis. His point is well taken. However, we have already determined that articles from such vendors as System Enhancement Associates and U.S. Robotics should be printed, as their content is targeted specifically for sysops, and use of their products enriche the experience of the sysop community as a whole. By the same token, a publication specifically targeted at sysops seemed appropriate, in my opinion. There are limits to what will appear, however. I chose not to print an article of the "get your users to buy from us and we'll send you a kickback" kind (which had already been widely distributed in a netmail bombing run anyway), as this type of article is clearly commercial in nature and has little to do with sysops except as middlemen in monetary transactions. Some cleric in California said it was too late to pray for peace. It's probably too late to pray for his soul, too. But I'll give it a whack. What do you think about the political model in FidoNet? I think this democratic dictatorship model works pretty well. The mail seems to get through, jerks get people pissed off in dreckomail, people learn stuff in technical conferences -- in short, things happen as expected, when expected. If we divided problems encountered by messages transmitted, I think we'd be better than any COMMERCIAL service (take that, Prodigy :-) FidoNews 8-05 Page 2 4 Feb 1991 Now we're electing a new Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator. The field of candidates is pretty impresssive, too. Lots of old war horses, every one of which I can claim to have met and whose company I have enjoyed. What a wonderful dilemma, choosing between them. I feel they have all demonstrated their skills and commitment in the past and would no doubt do so again as Z1EC. However, I admit that I do have a favorite. The gentleman I have in mind is probably the one you have heard the least about. This is because he's the most unassuming of the group. He quietly goes about his business, fixing a problem here, smoothing ruffled feathers there, and just makes things happen. He is also, in my opinion, the least political of the group, and the technophile in me really appreciates that. The gentleman I would most like to see as Z1EC is Dean Lachan. If you've not had any dealings with him, give him a look-see. He's an OK guy, and perhaps he is the kind of fresh blood we can use in that position. Of course, we win no matter who is chosen. That's the best news in this field. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-05 Page 3 4 Feb 1991 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Who Runs the Show? ------------------ by Glen Johnson NJ Net 269 Coordinator It's a beautiful Sunday morning here in NJ, and because there ain't no football on TV anymore, I decided to sit down at the tube and read the SYSOP conference. Well, actually, the Pro Bowl is on today, but that ain't really football. Especially when you have a guy like Jeff Hostetler, the NY Giants' backup quarterback that guided the Giants to, and won, the Super Bowl, who doesn't even get to GO to the Pro Bowl as a BACKUP, but that's a story for another day.... I happened across a message from Martin Pollard, 1:120/187 that lit my fuse, and I wanted to address that message here. Actually, whenever I see this topic come up, it lights my fuse :) Here is what Martin said, asking about the upcoming vote on WorldPol: "Here's the $64,000 question: Are us lowly, grunt SysOps going to be able to vote on it, or will it be yet another "aristocracy" vote? If it's the latter, then why the hell are we even bothering in the first place? (The more I read, the more I'm dismayed at the fact that ordinary nodes don't seem to have much voice in this network...) " As far as I can tell, Martin doesn't hold any position of "authority" in Fidonet. He's "just" a regular guy. And regular guys in Fidonet have absolutely no control over who runs the network, or how it develops. The fact is, that Fidonet Sysops have no vote. As a matter of fact, NOONE in Fidonet has a vote on anything. EVERYTHING that happens in Fidonet, according to Policy 4, is dictated from the top down. The *C structure in Fidonet makes ALL the decisions for the "regular guys". Of course, noone seems to pay any attention to the fact that if there were no "regular guys", there'd be NO FIDONET. There has been megabytes of talk over the last year or so about Fidonet moving toward a more democratic structure. But talk is cheap folks. Some nets, even some regions, conduct elections for NC, RC, or whatever, and that practice tends to pacify the "regular guys" . They feel secure in the fact that they, through their vote, have had a say in the network. FidoNews 8-05 Page 4 4 Feb 1991 Make no mistake about it, elections are a good thing. But they are, in fact, USELESS unless they are REQUIRED. You vote for your NC (if you CAN vote for your NC) because your NC FEELS that you should have a vote and your RC FEELS that he should honor and recognize the election. But you know what? They don't HAVE to. When your net elects an NC, your RC is prefectly entitled to say "No, I don't like him. Elect someone ELSE" or "No, I don't like him. THIS guy will be your NC" . You might say that that would never happen, and maybe it wouldn't. But the next time you vote for your NC, just don't forget that Fidonet policy does NOT provide for the election of anyone. Your NC is APPOINTED by the RC, period. Your NC serves as long as the RC wants him to. Your vote means NOTHING unless the *C structure about you WANTS it to. And that IS a Here's a good example. A while back, Matt Whelan, the International Coordinator, made GatePol the law of the land. He did it, because he is the IC, and he CAN do that. Now suppose 6000 of the 7000 nodes in Fidonet didn't like the policy and didn't want to do what it says? You know what the answer is? The answer is TOUGH SH*T. It is policy, it is binding and it IS in effect because the IC SAID SO. You don't HAVE to like it, and you have no recourse under policy. You will abide by that document because the IC said its in effect . How YOU feel about it means nothing. You have no say. Pretty crazy, isn't it? I am an elected NC, nearing the end of my second one-year term. If I choose to run for reelection, and am defeated, my net WILL have a new NC, because I WILL resign. But that's ME, folks. The point I'm trying to get across to everyone is that I don't HAVE to resign. I don't even have to run an election. I can serve as the net coordinator for net 269 until I die or until the RC kicks me out. I conduct an election in net 269 every year because it is the BEST I can do for the members of our net. I WANT them to feel that they have a say. I WANT them to participate. But the FACT is, that my successor may NOT feel that way, and the annual election in net 269 could INSTANTLY become a distant memory because Fidonet policy does NOT provide sysops with the right to vote for anyone or anything. Now, I feel like I should close this article by saying something profound like "We need to change Policy 4 right now to give sysops the right to vote ". But guess what? "Regular Guys" can't even do THAT! Nope, you cannot change policy. Again, you have no say. FidoNews 8-05 Page 5 4 Feb 1991 I'll concede to the argument that in many cases, it simply is not practical to conduct a network wide vote and collect 7000 votes. If that's the way ALL votes were done, progress in Fidonet would be pretty damn slow. Given that, there's nothing wrong with collecting votes from NCs. Notice I said NCs, not RCs. I'll explain why in a moment. But when your NC is asked to vote on something, he should be REQUIRED by policy, to conduct a vote of the membership of his net, and be REQUIRED by policy, to cast HIS vote according to the results of that net-wide vote. And of course, policy should dictate that that NC be elected by the rank and file of the net he serves. The reason I say that representative elections should include only NCs is because NCs represent the people. If the RC voted too, who would he be representing? The representative who represents the people? Your voice as a sysop would get reduced to a whisper real quick if we did that. What I DO urge you to do, is send a netmail to your Region Coordinator, Zone Coordinator, and the International Coordinator, and tell them ALL that you want all coordinators to be elected by the level below, and you want procedures in place to recall coordinators in office. AND that you want finite terms of office for all coordinators. Of course, some coordinators might deem it a dangerous thing if sysops could vote, because some of them might LOSE THEIR JOBS. But you know what? TOUGH SH*T. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-05 Page 6 4 Feb 1991 Tony Davis Fidonet 1:147/100 The following is my response to the questions asked by the ZC of candidates in the ZEC Election. I have attempted to answer all the requested questions, and have also attempted to not be vague in my answers. They have been answered in my normal tactful manner (A standing joke in R19 is that I have the tact of a Mack Truck, speeding down a steep hill, with defective brakes). My answers are not meant to offend anyone, but since I have answered specific questions asked of me about procedures either now in place, or proposed to be adopted, I am sure that some will be offended. To the sysops I offend, I apologize. But please understand, just as you may feel strongly on an issue, so do I; and it is the issues we are discussing, not personalities. 1> What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you held? A> A member of Fidonet since 1985 B> Former NEC 147 & Net 147 Echomail Hub (Appointed) C> Former Region 19 Echomail Hub (Appointed) D> Former Backbone Star (Appointed) E> Former IFNA Board of Directors (Appointed Once, Elected Once) F> Former Inter-Network Netmail & Echomail Gate (Appointed) G> Current RC 19 (Elected Twice) H> Current Fidonet Domain Gate Help Node & Operational Domain Gate (Appointed) I have not, at any time, held any position in any other network besides Fidonet. 2> If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently held FTN positions? No, I would honor the "suggestions" of Policy4, and would not wear "Dual Hats". I would resign the RC19 position that I now currently hold. 3> What changes, if any would you make to the Backbone? The Fidonet Backbone is an extremely well run, organized entity. My only concern in its present configuration is its dependence on one man and one system. We all have seen the destruction to Fidonet that can happen when one central point just disappears, as when the original Midwest Star vaporized. I believe there should be three stars, with each region having two connections to the stars (each of these connections to a different star). I believe the stars should not act as a regional hubs. I also believe that the ZEC should not be one of the stars. The ZEC needs to be able to sit back and look at the overall backbone operation, and not be influenced as to how any decision that he makes would effect his own system. The FidoNews 8-05 Page 7 4 Feb 1991 RECs should also not be stars due to the fact that they could be influenced by their own region's distribution, rather than having the best interest of Fidonet, as a whole, as their primary function. 4> How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if any would you like to see made to it? Fidonet has had restrictive policies in place too long, and adding this document would just be a continuation of the "NO!" attitude Fidonet has practiced, rather then the "Why Not?" attitude it needs to have. As for modifications, I believe the document has too many flaws to be salvaged. The argument normally used, is that it is better then no document, and we can change it later. This is the same argument used in the adoption of Policy4. No changes have been made to Policy4, and if this document is put into effect, I would not expect to see the trend change. If we allow a flawed document to be put in place, we will have to live with it. I would not like to see another all encompassing Echomail document. The operation of the echomail distribution chain is much to diverse. The capabilities of a NEC in a 3 node net with no cost sharing plan can not even closely relate to the capabilities of a NEC is a 100 node net with cost sharing in place. The responsibility of the next step, a REC responsible for distribution to 800+ node region are again totally different. Then the next link in the chain, the stars, have to operate in yet another different mode. A single set of rules can not apply to all in any equatable manner. I would support (and help create) a backbone policy that covered the ZEC, the Stars and the RECs (only in their relationship to backbone operation). As for the RECs and NECs in their local distribution methods, those procedures should be decided locally. No universal policy can cover their needs, for all their needs are different. 5> How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications if any, would you like to see made to it? This document makes the October 21 Version of Echopol look good. I have never seen a written document so one sided since Fidonet began. It is written as if Fidonet was "King" and every other network in existence is a "peon" that is supposed to bow in Fidonet's presence. Fidonet needs to work with other networks to remove the red tape currently in place for inter-network communications. There are enough technical problems concerning communications between networks that use different addressing methods that we don't need the political problems that mis-guided policies add to these difficulties. The domain technology now being implemented is an example of how this can be avoided. It needs no formal agreements, just a FidoNews 8-05 Page 8 4 Feb 1991 single sysop (or as many as are willing) operating a gate and running a program to convert the messages to the receiving networks addressing format. Since the Gateway Document was placed in effect by the IC, I will follow it (at least until someone convinces Matt how ridicules it is), but I do not like it, and wish it would just go away; just as I wish all restrictions of communications between networks would go away. 6> How do you see the relationship between the *ECs and the *Cs? I see very little relationship between the two. The functions of their jobs are very different. A *C needs as his primary strength the ability to deal with people. A *EC needs as his primary strength a solid technical ability in order to deal with the technical needs of distribution. The two organizations are different and separate, and should stay that way. 7> How do you see the relationship between the *ECs and Moderators? The moderators "own" the echos, the *ECs transport them. If we can remove the *ECs from having any say in the selection of the moderators, and remove *ECs from having any say or control concerning the content of the echos; there will be no need for the relationship between the two groups to be any more than the relationship each of us presently has with the guy that delivers the Snail Mail to our home; *ECs are mailmen, not policemen. 8> How do you feel about new technology (Groupmail, routed netmail, domains, EMSI, etc.,)? GroupMail: Groupmail technology is presently the best available technology for shared conferences between networks, since it does not make use of origin lines, paths, or seen-bys. I would hope that the Fidonet would begin a more widespread usage of the technology, especially in the conferences that we share with other networks. Domains: Since I operate as the Fidonet Domain Gate Help node, I would assume that my feelings on this question would be obvious. Domains are the next step in the future of FTN networks. FidoNews 8-05 Page 9 4 Feb 1991 Routed Netmail: Since R19 was one of the first regions to implement routed netmail along the echo distribution channels while I was acting as both RC19 and R19 Distribution Hub, I assume that my answer is also obvious. I am all for it, when used for low priority netmail. The routing scheme was not designed to replace Crash Netmail, just to supply an alternative way to communicate. EMSI: This technology allows great advantages when, as present, sysops are using so many different node numbers to operate in different networks simultaneously. As Domain addressing becomes more dominant the need for EMSI will become less. It is not that I do not like EMSI, it is that I feel it is a band-aid for a problem that needs a lot more then a band-aid. In the past 6 years, the most enjoyment I have had, has been implementing the new technologies that our developers have given us. Without the ever changing technologies, Fidonet would have crashed long ago. It is the new technologies that allow our continued growth. 9> What goals would you set as ZEC? 1> De-centralization of the backbone; with in-place disaster recovery methods. 2> Make it easier for new echos to be placed on the backbone 3> Removal of the *EC structure from ALL policy enforcement or policy interpretation. 4> Education of all Cs concerning the damage the current "curmudgeon" mode of thinking and operation is doing to our ability to communicate. 5> Implementation of new technologies as they are available. 6> Working with other networks to facilitate communications between Fidonet and the rest of the world. From my statements above, I would hope that all readers of this questionnaire would realize that I believe that Fidonet is being policed to death. This is a network that was started to allow communications. We need to get back to that main premise, not the never-ending policies that keep coming up to hinder communications. We started with: Do not be excessively Annoying. Do not be too easily Annoyed. FidoNews 8-05 Page 10 4 Feb 1991 These are the only rules that matter, the rest are restrictions that we just don't need. 10> Any other comments? I would like to thank the RECs for selecting me as a candidate. Win, Lose, or Draw, just being a candidate is an honor. If elected, I would do my best. And if not elected, I will support whichever candidate that is selected. I feel all of them could, and would be a credit to this hobby. The main assets that I would bring to the job are: 1> A track record of Fidonet involvement. 2> A track record of proven technical ability. 3> A track record of Democratic operation. I was the first RC in Zone 1 to be elected by a general election vote open to all sysops in the nodelist. To the best of my knowledge, I am the only RC in Zone 1 that has been democratically reelected to a second term; I also implemented the first general election for a REC. Region 19 is only region in Zone 1 where both the RC and REC have been elected by a one sysop - one vote general election. I am proud that I was able to give each sysop a strong voice in R19, and hopefully I will be able to carry on these democratic principals to more Fidonet areas nationwide. Respectfully, Tony Davis RC19 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-05 Page 11 4 Feb 1991 Amnon Nissan, REC18. ZEC candidate questionnaire Well, here I go again, answering one more questionnaire :-) I will try my best. 1) What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you held? I have been REC for region18 for the last two+ years. Befor that I was involved with the PCP distribution system. I was NC of net 158, NEC for net 151, and am the HUB for the Raleigh portion of net 151. 2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held FTN positions? I will not continue being REC, I already called for elections in the region, in which I am not a candidate (has nothing to do with the ZEC elections, just a promiss I made the region last year). I will continue being the HUB for Raleigh, yes. 3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars, Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)? I would like to add more regional/national HUBs, and whould like to see an orderly fasion in which echos will be exchanged between ZONE1 and other ZONEs/Networks. Alternate distribution systems should be developed, to sattisfy the ever growing demand of echomail. I would like to see the ZEC not involved as a STAR, and devote his\her time to answering mail and educating those who seek to know more. 4) How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if any, would you like to see made to it? The list is too long. In general, I would like to separate the *EC duties and the moderator duties. *EC should have no say in the way a moderator moderates her/his echo. I would like to take all references which suggest enforcement over moderators, out of it completely, and turn it into a backbone policy, where it will only address the technical points of distribution. But again, that should be done by the net as a whole, and not a one person opinion forced on others. 5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications, if any, would you like to see made to it? Frankly, it is not my idea of a policy. 6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs? FidoNews 8-05 Page 12 4 Feb 1991 I always had good relations with the *C structure (well.... almost always). We -- the *EC structure -- should not tell them how to run the net, and they in turn should not tell us how to distribute echomail. I know there are clashes between NECs and NCs here and there, and there will always be some, but talking it out and educating those involved, always seem to solve the problem. 7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators? Again, they should be separated. I see no problem with developing relationships between the two bodies (makes good working relations), but we cannot/should_not force them to do one thing or another. I found most moderators will listen if I listen, and we could always work out a good solution which will not leave either of us with a bad feeling towards the other. (And I know how one feels and what one does, when cornered :-) 8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)? Any new technology should be encouraged. Groupmail is great, but it will take a complete revolution to implement it in Fidonet right now. I routed netmail from day one, and all for it. Domains are the up and coming thing, and that is one thing that I beleive will help communications between the different networks. I have no comment about emsi and etc. :-) 9) What goals would you set as ZEC? To better the flow of echomail, to make the flow more efficient, and to develope the trust of the net in the backbone and the *EC structure. 10) Any other comments? Vote for me :-) Shalom Y'all Amnon Nissan, REC18 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-05 Page 13 4 Feb 1991 Dean Lachan 1:124/4115 Zone 1 EC Election Questionaire Response 1) What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you held? I am currently NEC for Net 124. Echomail distribution was becoming impossible. By breaking up the setup into HUBS, and distributing the load among the HUBs, the mail moved, efficiently. This same setup was placed into use for the Region 19 SDS. I am currently a Regional Hub for Region 19. 2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held FTN positions? I would pass on the job of R19SDS Coord and would evaluate the NEC position, since it has become mainly a mail-moving position. 3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars, Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)? The same changes that are currently being looked at being done now. Break the system up into HUBs for backup redundancy and efficiency. 4) How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if any, would you like to see made to it? I feel it needs work. I feel the 'backbone' needs their own defined document as to the movement of mail. How to deal with Dupes, creating areas, deleting areas, etc. As for telling individual nets how to run their nets, that belongs in the Nets own policies. If the Net has no policies, then maybe they don't need one - but personally believe each net should have their own guidelines on how to interface with the world outside of their net. Current Echo Policy is more 'do this and don't do that' rather than being a descriptive document about what echomail distribution is all about. 5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications, if any, would you like to see made to it? Don't feel anything about it. Should I? 6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs? I see that in our area, they work fine. They should remain seperate. The *EC tends to be more technical in nature, while the *C tends to lean towards the people aspect. However, it should be noted that their is a mixture in both positions. Both should be able to work with the others. FidoNews 8-05 Page 14 4 Feb 1991 7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators? *ECs move and coordinate echomail areas. Moderators coordinate the individual echomail areas they moderate. 8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)? Great. If it works and people are willing to work with it, then go for it. If it shuts out folks, then it needs to be reworked. 9) What goals would you set as ZEC? - Define Echomail Technical Document for Backbone distribution - Define and Setup Regional Hubs and their distribution for backup redundancy and efficiency. - Work on better exchange of echomail from Domain-Domain and Network-Networks. 10) Any other comments? If selected, I'll do the best I can do. I won't promise that people will always be happy, or that everyone will be happy, because they will not. Take Care, Dean. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-05 Page 15 4 Feb 1991 Butch Walker 1:157/3 The following are my responses to the questionnaire that George Peace sent out to the candidates for the ZEC 1 position. I'll be glad to answer any specific questions either in the Z1_ELECTION conference or via netmail. I will only respond to questions directed to me. I won't be debating other candidates nor commenting on their positions. I will answer questions as they relate to my position on issues. Butch Walker 1:157/3 1) What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you held? I am one of the founders of the Backbone and one of the first Sysops outside of Dallas to use echomail. I founded Net 161 in Region 10, was the first NC of 161 (from 1986 through 1989), spun off Net's 203, 205, & 208, appointed the first female NC in Fidonet, and served as NEC of 161 during the same time period. I was the first REC of Region 10, and the first 'official' ZEC of Zone 1 (Jon Sabol preceded me before the echomail coordinator positions were officially recognized). Until the spring of '89 I was the NorCal Star feeding the Nets in Northern California, Regions 14, 17 & 19, Hawaii, part of the U.K., and Malaysia. I currently moderate 15 echomail conferences. 2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held FTN positions? I have no current FidoNet positions. I do act as an echomail hub for the Cleveland hub of Net 157 and would continue to do so. 3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars, Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)? I would encourage the 'Backbone' to come up with a Backbone policy that applies to all conferences distributed via that channel. Any moderator of a conference not agreeing with the policy should then remove their conference from the backbone and take it to private distribution or another "backbone'. I would also encourage the backbone to find additional Regional distribution systems, to reduce the current bottleneck. FidoNews 8-05 Page 16 4 Feb 1991 By encouraging alternative distribution systems and increasing regional outlets traffic flow could be improved. Let me say however, that 'cross distribution' must be coordinated. A conference should only be available on one distribution system unless there is a great deal of communication to reduce the possibility of dupes, and should not be on any distribution system without some type of communicated agreement between the moderator and the distribution system. 4) How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if any, would you like to see made to it? I would move to separate the policy into two separate documents. One document would be specific to 'Backbone' distribution. The second would be a smaller, more general document establishing very limited guidelines. Those guidelines would be established by a committee representing the various distribution systems within FidoNet and moderators. For example, distribution specific policies would address the questions of when a conference would be dropped from distribution, how moderators are to be succeeded, how users or systems are to be dropped if requested by the moderator, etc. The FidoNet Zone 1 policy would then be a policy of coordination between distribution systems, inter-regional and inter-zonal coordination. 5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications, if any, would you like to see made to it? Gateway Policy should cover netmail. The ZEC should work out arrangements with other zones that suit the individual needs of the parties involved. The ZEC should also encourage software developers to either start supporting zones (tossers/scanners/packers/mailers/readers) or move toward domains. Other Zones/Domains are now a fact of life and the exchange of information between them should be encouraged. 6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs? I may be spoiled, but I have never seen a problem between the ?EC's and ?C's. We certainly had none in Region 10 (at least the Northern half) and I have only seen cooperation in Net 157. I guess there are some problems in some nets or regions (and certainly there was in Region 18 for a time). I guess my answer is that I see them as equal but separate. They should work together to simplify life, not make it more difficult. FidoNews 8-05 Page 17 4 Feb 1991 7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators? If the distribution portion of policy is removed from FidoNet Zone 1 Echomail Policy then I see very little relationship between the *EC's and the Moderators. I would only see them become involved if a dispute could not be settled between the moderator and the distribution system, or if both the moderator and the distribution system requested their assistance in dealing with another distribution system or Sysop/user. 8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)? New technology should be pursued and encouraged. After all Scanmail and Tossmail were new technology in 1986. The backbone was new technology, Arcmail, Confmail, QMail, Areafix, etc. were all new technology at some point. 9) What goals would you set as ZEC? 1) Remove the ZEC/REC's from a specific distribution system. That's not to say that cannot continue to operate as a Star or regional distribution system for the 'Backbone', but to move the *EC more to a coordination position and less of a distribution position. 2) To promote alternative distribution systems within FidoNet Zone 1. 3) To promote information exchange between Zones, whether the Zone is part of FidoNet or any other Net. 4) As part of the above, the splitting of 'EchoPol' into separate pieces. One distribution specific (each distribution system would have their own), and one limited umbrella Zone 1 policy. 10) Any other comments? I am not really campaigning for the position. If elected I'll do the job to the best of my ability. If not elected, I won't lose a minute of sleep. I'm only human. I make mistakes, I over react sometimes and probably under react at times as well. I've made decisions in the past that were unpopular with some, but I believe that under the set of circumstances at the time, they were the best of the available alternatives. FidoNews 8-05 Page 18 4 Feb 1991 The other candidates ( Tony, John, Dean & Amnon) are all qualified, have experience, are dependable. All have made contributions to FidoNet over the years. Either way you go folks, you should end up with a quality ZEC. It's just a matter of what direction you think the position should go. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-05 Page 19 4 Feb 1991 Censoring news in the 'Information Age' By Randy Edwards Sysop, 1:141/552 I had heard a lot of stories about the U.S. government censoring our media during the recent Middle East crisis and following the attack on Iraq and the start of the war. Strangely, I never heard the media complaining much about it. It never dawned on me as to how much our government was censoring *MY* news until I saw an discussion on CNN with one of my favorite reporters, Bill Moyers. During that interview Bill Moyers told of a reporter in the Middle East who reported for the Detroit Free Press newspaper. The reporter wrote a story that told about U.S. pilots returning from a bombing mission over Iraq. The reporter used the word "giddily" to describe the pilots when they returned alive from the mission. The reporter specifically wrote "The pilots giddily slapped each other on the back" after the successful mission. That was enough for the Pentagon censors to go into action. The Pentagon censored the story, replacing the single word "giddily" with "proudly" -- as in, "The pilots proudly slapped each other on the back." Our pilots don't giddily slap each others backs after a bombing mission it seems -- they proudly slap each others backs. I began to think that if the Pentagon is censoring the news to include things like a single adjective, what ELSE are they censoring or not telling us?! I've found some startling information. Here's a sample: * Members of the German Parliament and retired German Air Force Generals have stated they have reliable sources indicating between 100,000 and 300,000 Iraqis have been killed since George Bush ordered the bombing attacks on Iraq. * The report of the Iraqi helicopters defecting to Saudi Arabia before the war was actually a military psychological disinformation campaign designed to convince other Iraqis to defect. The media got wind of this propaganda and reported it in the U.S. as fact. * There have been reports of armed clashes between Western and Moslem "coalition" forces fighting amongst themselves, with many deaths resulting from the fighting. FidoNews 8-05 Page 20 4 Feb 1991 * Large anti-war protests and demonstrations are occuring worldwide in many, many countries and on a huge scale. Despite my own political views on the war (as a veteran, I'm very much anti-war/pro-peace) I find censorship by our (or any) government disgusting at best. In the so-called "information age" it seems we should have a higher standard than to allow the military to censor our civil news media. And I would hope the media would scream long and loudly about any imposition of censorship. But this hasn't happened. Opposition to the Pentagon censorship is not coming from ABC, CBS or AP or UPI, but instead it is coming in the form of a lawsuit by several small alternative news publications. Our military is not censoring the media for military security purposes -- but instead for propaganda purposes. I'm quite sure that the Iraqis would not have found much military intelligence value in the Detroit "Free" Press' reporting about pilots "giddily" slapping each other. But this is the extent of the censorship of our news by the Pentagon, in addition to our media's own tendency towards self-censorship. It is during repressive times like this where one can see how vital things like the FidoNet are. The FidoNet was founded to allow EASIER communciation between people -- and it does. I read several news-oriented echomail conferences where information flows freely -- the only restriction on the conferences are the individual conference moderator and the individual BBS's Sysop. I've read many uncensored reports from other nation's shortwave radio stations that appear in the FidoNet routinely. These news reports are uncensored by the U.S. government and they tend to put the responsibility of the information on where it belongs -- on the individual organization reporting the news, and most importantly, on the individual person reading the news. Pat yourself quickly on the back FidoNet -- and in particular all the people working to disseminate alternative news and information -- and then start wondering ... how long will it be before our "big brother" decides that we're too big for our own good? ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-05 Page 21 4 Feb 1991 John Roberts 1:385/49@fidonet 1:1091/0@starnet 7:49/2004@alternet ZEC Questionnaire - John Roberts Before I get into answering the questions, I'd like to say a few words. You see, when I was asked if I'd consider running for Zone 1 EchoMail Coordinator, I wasn't quite sure how to reply. I was remembering when I used to operate an echomail hub system - remembering all the nights of sitting up watching the machine to make sure the mail went through, and all the hours put in changing hardware and software to speed the system up and make things process faster, or better, or for any number of other reasons. I'm sure that those of you who operate hub systems, and especially those of you who did so before the technology got as reliable as it is these days, know exactly what I'm talking about. I'll be completely honest and tell you I don't miss that part at all. However, it only took a few minutes for me to realize that the function of the ZEC isn't to operate the largest hub system in the Zone. Rather, it's to help coordinate the operation of the distribution system, with the goal of getting the mail around in as effective and efficient a manner as possible. And, also completely honestly, that was the part I enjoyed, and that's the reason I agreed to the nomination. So, that said - on with the questions. Since they're fairly general, and since a lot of people are paying to carry this around, I'm not going into real detail. I'll be happy to answer any direct questions in more detail in the Z1_ELECTION conference. 1) What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you held? Qualifications - that's a bit tough, since as far as I know there's no real, concrete definition of what the function of a Zone Echomail Coordinator is. However, going with my previous statement (that it's to help coordinate the operation of the distribution system with the goal of getting the mail around in as effective and efficient a manner as possible), I'll make a stab at it. First, it requires a certain intimacy with the mechanisms involved. I believe I have that part, based on experience which I'll cover in a minute. It also needs more than a little objectivity and the ability to see issues and problems FidoNews 8-05 Page 22 4 Feb 1991 from more than one perspective. It's been my observation that most of the folks who move lots of mail don't do it for the high wages, glory, or esteem from others. In general, they do it because they want to. To devote the kind of time, effort, and expense that's required, a person really has to love what they're doing. This isn't a bad thing - quite the contrary. But I feel that it can have a tendency to cloud some of the perspective - the ability to stand back at a distance and observe a situation from another viewpoint - and make it difficult to maintain the necessary objectivity. Some of you may have wondered what I'm even doing on the ballot, since I'm not an REC, and don't operate a hub system. But I believe that it's precisely for that reason that I can provide some additional balance to the position simply by not being so intimately involved in the daily "nuts and bolts" part of the operation. Oh - and yes, I do answer my netmail. As for experience - I've held FidoNet NC, NEC, and REC positions at various times in the past few years, was part of the SDN system in its early stages, and operated net and regional echomail hub systems for some time as well. I've operated netmail and echomail gateways between FidoNet and other FTN's, between EchoMail and GroupMail technologies, and between Domains. 2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held FTN positions? While I currently hold no position within FidoNet, I'd have to answer the question with the qualification that it would depend on what the other position(s) were, and whether there would be any likelihood of conflict between the functions of the positions. For instance, I don't feel that it's appropriate for an individual to hold ?C and ?EC positions within the same network. I do hold positions in FTN's other than FidoNet. However, my personal feeling is that since the ZEC position is a FidoNet responsibility, and that the majority (if not all) of the alternative networks are independent entities, it's not actually important at the present time. However, to go on record - should there come a time when there would develop a conflict of interest, or more importantly, a negative impact on either FidoNet or any of the other FTN's of which I may be a part at the time, then I would remove myself from that conflict or impact by whatever means was most appropriate to avoiding the problem, including resigning from whatever position(s) necessary. This includes resigning the ZEC position, should I be elected and should that appear to be the most beneficial course of action in the case such conflicts were to develop. FidoNews 8-05 Page 23 4 Feb 1991 3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars, Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)? I'm a strong proponent of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" philosophy. I don't believe in change strictly for the sake of change, so I'd have to answer this question with others - such as asking what doesn't work, and what needs to be done to fix it? In any case, any such changes shouldn't be done unilaterally by a single individual. They should be discussed at length and agreed upon by at least all the major participants, with opportunity for comments from everyone that may be affected by any such changes. 4) How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if any, would you like to see made to it? I feel that basically it's a good document - at least, the original draft. There are certainly some details that need to be worked out, especially in the area of definitions of terms. There needs to be some work in the area of intention - whether it's to be an operational document for the distribution of EchoMail, primarily for the use of the backbone, or whether it's intended to be an all-encompassing policy that covers all aspects of EchoMail. Either way, I believe certain things such as the authority of conference moderators, the rights of conference participants, and more specific guidelines on how to have conferences added to and removed from the backbone should be addressed - whether in the general EchoMail Policy or elsewhere. As for the current drafts for a new version, I'm unable to comment on them directly as I haven't been in direct communication with those working on them. I see things I like, and I see things I don't like. However, there are some ambiguous passages that I'd like to have a better understanding of the intent of, preferably through direct discussion with those who authored them, before I comment or make any suggestions for modification that could be considered either supportive or negative. 5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications, if any, would you like to see made to it? As with the Echo Policy document, I feel like it's essentially good, but needs work on the details. There are some ambiguities in it which, again, may be able to be rectified simply through more detailed definition of certain terms used within the document. I'm not completely comfortable with a few of its provisions, but I understand some of the reasons that led the authors to believe they were necessary. However, I feel that in some cases the result is that of making the FidoNews 8-05 Page 24 4 Feb 1991 "symptoms" go unnoticed without any real impact on the actual causes of the problems. I could wish for a bit more flexibility to be built in, but I really have no concrete suggestions on how it could be done within the current document. It's quite possible that any fix would require a more extensive rework than is initially evident. 6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs? I believe that it has to be something of a peer relationship, with a good deal of symbiosis. The *EC's need to have the support of the *C's, and the *C's need to be able to trust the judgment of the *EC's, all the way up and down the chain. In an ideal world, conflicts would never arise - but we just don't live in an ideal world. It's in the cases of those conflicts where the *EC's and *C's have to be able to work together. I think, in general, that the system as established works pretty well - but with as many people involved as are, there are bound to be occasional disagreements and disputes - personality clashes, as it were. It's for these cases that we may perhaps need to define this relationship in more concrete terms than has been done previously - be it in Policy, Echo Policy, or just in some sort of overall gentlemen's (gentlefolk's?) agreement. 7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators? I'm concerned about this one. While things generally seem to work pretty well most of the time, we really have no assurance built into the system to avoid capricious decisions and possible abuses. I think that the *EC's have to support the Moderators in cases of clear cut abuse. I also believe that there has to be some sort of mechanism for protecting the conference participants from abuse of the system by a given Moderator. I'm sure that there's some definable, workable middle ground - it's just that we haven't really stumbled across the words to delineate these authorities (and responsibilities) just yet. What I mean in this answer and the one previous is not that the ?EC structure should necessarily have any direct administrative control over FidoNet itself - that is the job of the ?C structure. What I'm speaking of here is coordination within the ?EC structure itself, as concerns cooperation with moderators. For instance, should links to a given system be removed for cause, it should be the responsibility of the rest of the ?EC structure to attempt to ensure that those links not be reestablished via some other routing. If they are reestablished, and the problem persists, then it should be handed off to the ?C structure for any further action, and the ?C structure should be willing to work with the ?EC FidoNews 8-05 Page 25 4 Feb 1991 structure to accomplish the desired result - that of eliminating the problem, whatever it may be or whatever actions may ultimately become necessary. 8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)? New technology is wonderful - as long as we're careful not to break what we already have. FidoNet is large enough that what may appear to be relatively minor changes can have serious effects on a significant number of people. While this is primarily within the realm of the FTSC, it's important to maintain backward compatibility. On the other hand, when new and beneficial capabilities come along, it's important that we get the word out and provide some sort of positive encouragement for the adoption of those changes. I'd have to say that my general opinion on the introduction of new technology would be that as long as it doesn't break something else, by all means give it a try - at least for a reasonable period to find out if it really works or if it's just a bell or whistle that is of little use or functionality as far as the network as a whole is concerned. As an example of a "bell or whistle", some of the uses of ^Akludge lines come immediately to mind. I see many echomail messages where the body of the text is much shorter than the size of the ^Akludge lines that are inserted into it. These are, quite simply, costing people money to drag about, and in some cases I wonder about the actual usefulness of the information conveyed in them. Among some of the ones that do appear to have valid uses, some are implemented enough differently from one software package to another that it would seem that some of their usefulness is negated as well. I'd like to see some sort of standardization of formats as well as a requirement for FTSC review as to the overall potential of their usefulness before too many more of these are unleashed on the network. 9) What goals would you set as ZEC? That's another tough one. I'm not a software author, and as I said earlier, don't believe in making unilateral decisions. I'm also realistic enough to not make bets on other folks' tricks. Instead of concrete goals, let me just say that I'd like to see FidoNet and the use of FidoNet technology continue to expand, and to realize more of the potential that so many have been working toward for so long. I'd like to see us realize more of that potential in not only the good we can do for ourselves and for all the FTN's, but in the benefits that could be realized by a truly global amateur communications network that's within the reach of anyone. FidoNews 8-05 Page 26 4 Feb 1991 Of course, that's the "pie in the sky", or overall viewpoint. To be a bit more specific, I feel that there are two major accomplishments that need to be worked toward: increasing the efficiency of distribution where possible, and decreasing both overall and individual costs for both distribution and participation. There are others that are desirable and important, such as taking care that we're not legislated out of existence, and increasing capabilities for communications between FidoNet and other networks, both FTN and non-FTN. I have ideas and suggestions for all of these, some of which may be workable, and others of which in all probability are not. More importantly, I'd certainly be willing to listen to and give serious consideration to the opinions of other people, as well. 10) Any other comments? Just this - EchoMail, like FidoNet, isn't a one-man show, and should never be allowed to become one. Should I be elected to fill the position of ZEC, _I_ am not going to do *anything*. However, with the help of all the really good people who are directly involved in the moving of those megabytes of mail on a day to day basis, and with the advice and assistance of all the various ?C's and ?EC's, _we_ might just be able to accomplish a few things that are of benefit to everyone. If you managed to read through all that, congratulations - you've got a *lot* of patience. I won't go on much longer, but I do want to make some final comments. First, I want to thank the REC's for the serious thought and consideration that was obviously put into the selection of the other candidates, and more personally for the vote of confidence in including me - whether or not I'm elected, it's a pleasure to be considered with such a quality group of individuals. I