F I D O N E W S Volume 18, Number 02 08 Jan 2001 +----------------------------+---------------------------------------+ | The newsletter of the | ISSN 1198-4589 Published by: | | FidoNet community | "FidoNews" | | _ | 1-714-639-0377 1:1/23 | | / \ | 1-714-532-1586 1:103/301 | | /|oo \ | BinkD supported both above | | (_| /_) | | | _`@/_ \ _ | | | | | \ \\ | Editor: Warren Bonner | | | (*) | \ )) | editor@fidonews.org | | |__U__| / \// | wdbonner@pacbell.net | | _//|| _\ / | | | (_/(_|(____/ | | | (jm) | Newspapers should have no friends. | | | -- JOSEPH PULITZER | +----------------------------+---------------------------------------+ Table of Contents 1. HEADLINE ................................................. 1 ***Fidonews Guidelines*** ................................ 1 2. CHAT WITH EDITOR ......................................... 2 -=+Chat with the Editor+=- ............................... 2 3. GUEST EDITORIAL .......................................... 7 *****Guest Editoral***** ................................. 7 4. LAND OF LOST NODES ....................................... 9 ***Lost Perspective*** ................................... 9 5. LETTERS ACROSS THE EDITOR'S DESK ......................... 11 * Letters to Fidonews* ................................... 11 6. FIDO NAVAL STORIES ....................................... 13 -+-+-+Fido Naval STORIES+-+-+- ........................... 13 7. GETTING TECHNICAL ........................................ 14 8. POET'S CORNER ............................................ 17 Poet's Corner ............................................ 17 9. ECHOING .................................................. 18 -=+ECHOES and RE-ECHOES+=- ............................... 18 10. HUMOR ................................................... 21 11. FIDONET BY INTERNET ..................................... 22 12. FIDONEWS INFORMATION .................................... 27 FIDONEWS INFORMATION ..................................... 27 FIDONEWS 18-02 Page 1 8 Jan 2001 ================================================================= HEADLINE ================================================================= Hi folks, a few words about submissions of articles to the Snooze. Please use the addresses listed in the Trade Marked banner at the beginning of each issue in case you forget them herein. Wdbonner@pacbell.net Fidonews@netscape.net editor@fidonews.org And for AOL users: WarBonD777@aol.com You may send as Netmail, text for short items, .zip attached items. Warren Bonner 1:1/23 Warren Bonner 1:103/401 Please send articles as: name.txt format with line length of 70 characters or less. Please include the full name of the initials if using quoted text. Please try to get your submission in by Saturday noon. Please be sure your information is correct and spell checked. Please do not use any foul language as I am told some countries are very sensitive. Don't quote any uncivilized comments for the Snooze. More on this later. Thanks, Ol'wdb ----------------------------------------------------------------- FIDONEWS 18-02 Page 2 8 Jan 2001 ================================================================= CHAT WITH EDITOR ================================================================= Darrell and editor chat about elections and policy guidelines. In response to those who say they are confused as to who says what all lines will hold author's initials, in all snooze articles. ===============8<---from Fidonews echo------------------------------- DS> Hi Warren! > DS> This is such a good post by you. Let's try this again. > > Warren Bonner wrote in a message to Darrell Salter: > > WB> I think you were a sincere RC and had very convincing backing by > WB> your sysops, > DS> Well I'm partisan here for sure, but yes, I'm proud of those DS> Sysops. They supported me very well and I am very fortunate to DS> have had an opportunity to serve them. I'm happy to be in Region DS> 12. I'm sure most (ex)RCs feel the same way about their Regions. > > WB> but imho you should have raised hell the instant option one for > WB> sysop level election was dropped, and worked the power lines to > WB> the other RC's to stand tall with you. > DS> It is not true that I said nothing to the other RCs about this DS> issue. I saw it as a Sysop issue and wanted it discussed in the DS> Sysop echos. Most of the other RCs would not accommodate me (us). DS> They wanted it discussed in the Z1REGCON echo. I believe that is DS> because they saw it as a RC issue. They wanted me to be a RC, DS> not a Sysop. I wanted them to be Sysops, not RCs. We were at an DS> impasse. I continued to make it a Sysop issue and they withdrew DS> to Z1REGCON. The rest, as they say, is history, but this DS> election should never have been dictated by the RCC. > > WB> That action would have short circuited the SNAP election, > DS> I doubt it, but perhaps your point has merit. From my point of DS> view it was much more important to me for the process to have DS> been performed in concert with the Sysops of Zone 1, rather than DS> the RCs of Zone 1. If the Sysops had come up with the election DS> guidelines, even if they were exactly the same guidelines as DS> what were eventually used, I would have no objections. But one DS> RC especially would not give up the crafting of those guidelines DS> to the Sysops. That was the first point of contention. > > WB> giving you and the other RC's more time in Jan. 2001 to put > WB> together a Sysop election. > >DS> Then why didn't any of the other 9 RCs do it? I think you're a >DS > little off base here. > > WB> I don't know > FIDONEWS 18-02 Page 3 8 Jan 2001 DS> Let's try to identify the guilty parties. The first thing that DS> comes to mind is, isn't it just a little odd that a solitary RC DS> is blamed for an election that 9 other RCs sanctioned? The next DS> thing that comes to mind is, isn't it just a little odd that the DS> Region that lobbied the most strenuously for a Sysop-level DS> election is blamed for an election that 9 other Regions DS> sanctioned? Where were those 9 other RC voices? Where were those DS> 9 other Region's Sysops voices, all extolling the virtues of a DS> true Sysop-level election? Region 12 and I lobbied the hardest DS> for a true Sysop-level election. > DS> The reason I say you're a little off base is because I suspect DS> you've fallen prey to listening to people that have been DS> somewhat less than forthright with you and all too eager to DS> deflect their own responsibility in this matter. That happens to DS> all of us, especially with friends, loyalty and everything, but DS> please try to be objective here. Many of us have been played for DS> fools. It's not hard to understand the bitterness. > > WB> except time was of the essence and got rushed into it. > DS> Do you not recall the discussion on the time frame that Ruth DS> expounded on with the others? There was more than enough time DS> for a Sysop-level election. Certain people didn't want one and DS> used P4 to thwart any attempts to have one. We both know who DS> they are. > WB>Yes, and at that time, (the day of Ward's resignation with cut WB>date), I too professed that an IMMEDIATE sysop election was WB>possible time wise. Two more weeks went by in bickering, then WB>Stewart called a poll. Another few days and Carol accepted ECship. WB>Her first draft was sysop compliant... and was rejected by Dallas WB>and Jim I was told. Then with no consensus a new draft, and a WB>final "C" draft was accepted by the RC's. Thus the "RC" election. WB>NOW to my point to you was: Stop the train. WHO says that WB>the majority of the RC's can be overruled??? P4??? That is where WB>the phone lines should have been burning up. RC's are sysops FIRST WB>RC's second by elections already established. They have a majority WB>rule right, and should tell the descending minority to abide their WB>decision. That's standard protocol. > DS> Rather than directing your energy at the few that did speak up DS> favourably in this regard, that did expend the energy to gather DS> Sysop input via a poll (which was also thwarted I might add), DS> perhaps you should be asking serious questions of the people DS> that were responsible for killing Option #1, also known as Draft DS> A. This was not a good election, Warren, not for Sysops. > > WB> Anyhow the snap election turned out very well > DS> Some people do not think so and that's not a criticism of Janis DS> but of the system. I personally believe we have some terrific DS> people that survive in this hobby not because of the system but DS> in spite of it. Unfortunately it only takes a few bad apples and DS> a bad system to do some serious damage. > FIDONEWS 18-02 Page 4 8 Jan 2001 WB> Amen to that, and "bad apples" all seem to have a Nepoleonic EGO. > DS> Consider, P4 was the tool that thwarted a true Sysop-level DS> election in our Z1C election and that was immediately followed DS> by an obscene P4 event involving the IC. Frankly, Fidonet's DS> history is littered with obscene P4 events. DS> > WB> and did save the time required to have a Z1C in place for the > WB> 5th of Jan. 2001. > DS> There were any number of ways of getting a Z1C in place by Jan DS> 5th. I don't think the best one was used. > WB>True, a Pro Tem Z1C for one. > > WB> Just whistling in the dark now. It is done. Complete. Final. > >DS> It was final the moment 9 RCs said it was. But if you want to >DS> blame the one RC that wouldn't go along with it be my guest. > > WB> OK, perhaps "Darrell's `fault'", is heavy in that light. > WB> Perhaps I should have said `objection'. > DS> I'll thank you for that. It's easy to look for an convenient DS> target and single out a scapegoat. It's a little harder to be DS> objective and ask if we really did the right thing, especially DS> when it's pretty clear to at least some of us that we didn't. DS> I've made mistakes, no doubt about it. We all do. But I don't DS> see a lot of objectivity when it comes to admitting them. I do DS> see a lot of ill-conceived finger pointing though. This election DS> was handled very badly. That became apparent early on and rather DS> than admit it and correct it, the truly responsible parties DS> started pointing fingers at the scapegoat(s). > > WB> Stewart is beating a dead horse. > >DS> Stewart is pointing and saying 'Look at the dead horse!'. >DS> The real question is, who killed it? > > WB> The RC's who appointed EC's to take every voting sysops vote and > WB> report the majority's preference to their RC, who voted their > WB> regions choice? > DS> Yes, I'm afraid so, because they already had draft A which DS> included the right for the Sysop to vote directly. They took DS> that right away and they used P4 to do it. > DS> Yes, because there still is no accountability to the Sysops. > DS> Yes, because Sysops that had hopes that things were moving in a DS> better direction were disappointed by their RCs when those hopes DS> were dashed. > DS> The dead horse should be a concern, Warren, because it was the DS> hope for real Sysop's rights. If we'd had any we would have had DS> a true Sysop-level election. But we don't. The *Cs have the FIDONEWS 18-02 Page 5 8 Jan 2001 DS> rights, so we had a *C-level election as sanctioned by the *C DS> policy document, P4. > > WB> Point is we already know that why echo it over and over for > WB> days and weeks....? IF it made one IOTA of difference, or > WB> could make any difference, it would be sensible, otherwise > WB> it is not sensible. > DS> Because many of us are still unhappy about a system than DS> empowers *Cs and we are voicing that displeasure. Would you DS> see even that little scrap taken away too? > DS> Darrell > WB>No, definitely not. But, may I offer a more productive method of WB>expressing your "unhappiness". Both you and Stewart are very WB>articulate. Use your talents to build a Zone election policy, then WB>promote it. It could become acceptable to all zones and amend P4 WB>at some future date. WB>We obviously need a Zone Election Policy to prevent this kind of WB>abstention that disenfranchised your region's sysop from the other WB>regions that did vote. A divided Zone will always fail it's duty. WB>That duty being the hobby harmony that nurtures good will by all. WB>We have a civil duty to as, civilized entities, be constructive. WB>It is better to work earnestly within the existing system to change WB>it where necessary due to time and technological changes, than to WB>ignore it and lash out demeaningly at the rest of the body of the WB>IMHO, you and the other dissenters of this election, are far too WB>valuable to lose. I hope you all will consider my humble opinion WB>and work to unite and heal and make the changes you want with a WB>new zone one guideline or policy. Ol'wdb ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ Thom replied to Ol'wdb: WB> Well analyzed Thom! TLC>Thanks! WB> Plus we have a new level head at Z1 controls. WB> I hope the other zones improve as much in the WB> coming year, as we have in this zone. TLC> I second that thought. If they don't, it's gonna be a long, TLC> uphill fight. WB> Personally, I don't see a need for a "IC" hat. The extra WB> tie-breaking vote? Oh well I am happy with our NA Zone One now, WB> and any of the candidates could have been a fine Z1C, and WB> qualified to become the IC if the ZCC just has to have a FIDONEWS 18-02 Page 6 8 Jan 2001 WB> tie-breaker. TLC> Yes, there doesn't seem to be much of a need for an IC...and especially one defined as the most equal of equal peers. The current IC's actions are a perfect