Volume 8, Number 14 8 April 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 WorldPol ... A good excuse to start on Policy6 ........... 1 2. ARTICLES ................................................. 5 WorldPol is no nonsense .................................. 5 WorldPol: Not Perfect, but the Best so Far ............... 11 Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator Election ..................... 12 R U Canajan Eh? The CanaChatter Echo .................... 13 Zone 1 FidoCon '91 Update ................................ 15 The Unfulfilled Promise of Fidonet ....................... 22 3. LATEST VERSIONS .......................................... 27 Latest Software Versions ................................. 27 And more! FidoNews 8-14 Page 1 8 Apr 1991 ================================================================= EDITORIAL ================================================================= For the past two weeks I have been trying to figure out just how to tell you what I think about the new Policy proposal. The exact method that would best serve my need to get it all off my chest, and your need to figure out whether my comments were best ignored or heeded. Before I push you to the point of making that decision regarding my words, please at least heed this advice: read the proposed Policy carefully, read the Policy it replaces, and do some "what if" scenarios. Consider some situations where someone was kept from doing something by present Policy; determine whether you feel that person should be able to do that thing; see if the new Policy addresses it. Consider the additional freedom of action offered by the new Policy. Good or Bad? Look at what effect the changes will have on the day-by-day operation of the net. Do they seem to be positive or negative? Discuss it with others. Pass on your advice to your NC. Be a part of this process. OK. Thanks. Now I'll cut to the chase. Worldpol seems to me to be a well-intentioned effort to correct a few perceived flaws in Policy 4. For some reason, the resultant document seems to have basically started from a blank sheet of paper, without considering the reason for any of those sections of Policy 4 which demonstated those perceived flaws. Without going completely Luddite on you, let me still point out that Policy1-Policy4 seem to have been a fairly good set of rules. After all, they got us here. I don't see why all of a sudden the entire fabric needed to be torn out in favor of a new one. Perhaps I'm just not farsighted enough. Hell, some mornings I can't even remember the name of the kid who played Pugsley. Right up front, let me tell you what the biggest problem with this document is. There are a lot of noises swirling around these days with words like "liability" and "punitive damages" in them. This document blows enough of the structure of FidoNet away to make a number of lawyers very rich and send a few coordinators to a new home in a cardboard box. The fact that it was written by a person for whom English is a second language (although his command of it is better than many Americans of my acquaintance) really doesn't hold a single drop of water in a court of law. To add to this problem, the disclaimer stating that fact is in a section that will be deleted should the vote be in favor of ratification. Sic transit NC's. FidoNews 8-14 Page 2 8 Apr 1991 Next problem: the concept of "areas" is diluted to the point of being meaningless. This works great in combination with another feature which I'll address in a minute. But for now, consider this: there is nothing in Worldpol to keep someone from being RC of every region in a Zone. All that person has to do is maintain a node in every region, which is perfectly allowable under the new Policy -- and that makes him/her part of the "area" which she/he would be coordinating, and eligible for election. Yeah, sure, that could never happen. And O-rings never burn through and the Libyans are only manufacturing pharmaceuticals. How about the local net policies? Did anyone notice that local net policy is not subordinate to regional policy? But the RC has to deal with policy disputes. Now that's fair, isn't it? Harry has already mentioned a number of the things that bother me most about this one. I'll bet anyone five dollars that there will be at least one white-only net in North America by the end of the year if this policy passes. I'll bet anyone ten dollars that Zone 4 will have communists-not-allowed nets and regions in less time than that. Would the Z4C care to comment on whether Cubans should be allowed in FidoNet? And how convenient it will be to have a policy that lets you tell them where to stick their modems? Has anyone heard from Russia recently, and will prospective members of FidoNet have to show a prison tattoo or a burned-up party card to join? What is a Western-style democracy for the purposes of Worldpol? The United States? Let's put that to the test. I'll send in a voter registration form to Duluth, Minnesota. I'll say that while I actually live and work in New Hampshire, I like Minnesota best and I want to vote and pay taxes there. I bet New Hampshire will go along with it, too. Here's another thing: There is a substantial body of legislation and judicial action which helps to dampen the "tyranny of the majority" in the United States. This takes the form of representation in local governments by the minority party, affirmative action quotas, and many other things which if just left to a popular vote would probably fail resoundingly. Ask the people of Boston or Yonkers if they favor busing. If the United States worked like Worldpol, there would be no such thing. If not the United States, then perhaps El Salvador? Haiti? Cuba? (Forget I said Cuba, I just remembered that Communists live there) This is an important point. You can't just say "Western standards" and expect that to suffice. FidoNews 8-14 Page 3 8 Apr 1991 Worldpol says that FidoNews is the official newsletter. It says that members of an area (whatever that is) can vote not to receive it. Did anyone mention that since FidoNews is the official newsletter, the *C is liable in any case involving prior notice, if FidoNews was not provided? If the person who did not receive that prior notice (and because of the "official newsletter" clause, FidoNews is the only place that has any legal standing) in FidoNews wasn't in favor of dropping it, the *C loses and some lawyer gets rich. Why didn't the authors didn't put something in Worldpol saying that I didn't have to accept FidoNews submissions from an area that has voted not to receive it? After all, why should the rest of the net have to pay to move, or to read, something submitted by someone who never intends to read it her/himself? Most of my other objections have been voiced equally well or better by others. I'm glad to be able to say that. I'm not a lone voice in the wilderness. Perhaps I'm one of a few hundred such voices, but I suspect the real numbers are very different. Hello, Jack? Jack Decker? I have an answer to your question from last week. Why weren't people such as myself involved in the effort to pull Worldpol from the ashes of Policy4? Perhaps because unlike yourself, we saw no ashes. There is some need for improvement in the document, but it neither needs nor deserves to be discarded just because you and a few dozen others don't understand why it is the way it is. Discussions leading to corrective surgery would have garnered a great deal more interest from myself and others than what we observed to be the case: the proposition that the basis of FidoNet's "new world order" was the scrapping of previous documents and a fresh start with fresh minds, unencumbered by outmoded views. In other words, smart young turks at work, old fogies stay out! So many of us did (BTW, Harry asks me to note that he sent comments after each published revision to his NC, RC and ZC). Since the net continued to work all the time you guys were plugging away at this, we figured there was no need to fix anything right away. I still feel that way. Almost. I think that Worldpol needs a LOT of fixing before it should be adopted. Democracy in FidoNet is a great idea. But just like every great thing, it's best in moderation. Worldpol proposes too much of that good thing. We'll all get tummy aches if we have it. Worldpol is not a keeper. Throw it back and let it mature a bit. FidoNews 8-14 Page 4 8 Apr 1991 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 8-14 Page 5 8 Apr 1991 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Folks Who Oppose Democracy In FidoNet Are Nervous But... WORLDPOL IS NO NONSENSE A lot has been said about WorldPol. Both recently and before. WorldPol was first released in October of 1989 and published on FidoNews. Since then, all comments by anyone interested were happily received and considered. The document was re-released in 7 other opportunities as changes were been proposed and critics were made. All versions have been published on FidoNews. It is the first time in FidoNet history that a policy document is written by the network's sysops and not just by coordinators. The first time that anybody interested was able to participate and actually invited to do so. It is the first time that democracy is proposed for FidoNet. In an article by Harry Lee on a past number of FidoNews, he says that WorldPol changes too many things at one time. Whereas it's a fact that many things are changed, I can well sit and argue if it's really "too many things". I would rather say "many", but never "too many". The comparison of WorldPol and Policy4 as two mailers with different codes and different protocols does only to the purpose of creating a bigger confusion. Things are not really like that. And the contradiction comes later in the same text: the author subsequently claims that WorldPol uses a lot of Policy4 wording, which is true. Policy4 besides being an evolution of Policy3 as Harry likes to say, is also a degeneration of the latter. How did the authors know that FidoNet (and by that I refer to "the sysops members of FidoNet") wanted a system of elections analogous of the most popularly known dictatorial regimes in the world? Yes, that's what Policy4 proposes: John ZC elects Jim RC, Peter RC and Paul RC. And then Jim RC, Peter RC and Paul RC elect John ZC! Added to this is the fact that then Jim RC, Peter RC and Paul RC go and choose their respective regions' NCs. In between, where are the FidoNet sysops? They are right there: forgotten and ignored. But according to those that defend Policy4, the poor sysops like to be forgotten and ignored! Excusez-moi, but I simply don't buy that. Democracy is probably the point that, along with "geography", doesn't let WorldPol's most staunch opponents sleep at night. So let's talk about "geography:" I am not a supporter of non-geographic nets and never was. In Zone-4, where I belong, there aren't any non-geographic networks at all. FidoNews 8-14 Page 6 8 Apr 1991 But I know very well that across the Ocean, in Europe, things are different. The two biggest regions there: Holland and Germany, have non-geographic nets. Should I, from Buenos Aires, tell the guys in Antwerpen and Hamburg that what they do is wrong? I rather chose to sit and watch. It is their experience and if they do it that way, it's maybe because that is the best for them. It does not and will not in any way, harm the rest of FidoNet... So why should I complain? Why should anyone complain? I will probably support establishing geographic restrictions in Zone-4, when we write our Zone policy. I believe it will be better that way for us but why in the world should I pretend to indicate somebody thousands of miles away what to do? Telling many strangers what to do is it precisely what Policy4 intends to do, and unquestionably fails. Policy4 is not enforced in many parts around the world because it is unenforceable! And this does not only refer to smallZone-4, it also refers to Zone-2, Zone-5 a