= Сообщение: 5419 из 12527 ====================================== ENET.SYSOP = От : Michiel van der Vlist 2:280/5555 12 Sep 17 18:00:10 Кому : Ward Dossche 12 Sep 17 18:00:10 Тема : ERRFLAGS.ZC2 FGHI : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:280/5555+59b8048a На : area://ENET.SYSOP?msgid=2:292/854+a4001349 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: UTF-8 ================================== ============================================================================== Hello Ward,
On Tuesday September 12 2017 00:23, you wrote to me:
Mv>> There has been no discussion.
WD> Maybe other people were involved ... who knows ... or is a discussion WD> not valid until you were in it?
So with whom did you discuss it? The facebook crowd?
Mv>> Sorry, I can not support this.
WD> You should perhaps more become involved in the real world ... as a WD> result of this evolution NC292 of the region which you administer is
What your decree boils down to is that you allow points in the nodelist. Allowing points in the nodelist is not evolution, that is revolution. I seriously doubt that allowing large numbers of systems unable to accept incoming calls, instead of the occasional rare exception, is beneficial for the smooth operation of the network. On the contrary, I fear it may lead to instability and chaos. Do we really want a nodelist that has the same percentage of dead wood as the pointlist?
You did this without any visible consideration for the possible technical, administrative and social consequences. You did not consult the FTSC, you did not consult the sysops, you did not consult the NCs, you did not consult the RCs. Have you forgotten that you came into position by election? If not why did you not at least consult your electorate?
Have you considered the consequences for the network when points massively decide they want a node number? Why remain point if one can have the benefits of full membership without the burden of any additional effort?
Have you considered the load on the NCs? How are they going to keep track of all those point nodes that have no obligation to have a mailer on line? How are they going to establish if they are still there? What should hosts or hubs do with netmail for these point nodes that they can not deliver because there is no mailer on line and they do not poll for a while?
What about echomail hubs that see their outbound fill up with mail for these point nodes?
What if the sysop of such a point node file a complaint? What if someone files a complaint against such a point node?
All this - and most likely more - should have been considered and discussed with the parties concerned. /Before,/ not after the fact.
WD> You're not happy with this evolution but I got over 30 messages in WD> netmail, email and Facebook expressing satisfaction that this step has WD> been taken.
So you got the fiat from the facebook crowd. Congratulations.
No, I am not at all happy about this REvolution and that's an understatement. It is ill conceived and not thought through. I am not against evolution. I am not against allowing new things per sé. If people want to explore Fidonet from a tablet or smartphone, I am not going to say they should not. But the way it is now decreed, is not evolution, it is revolution.
What I dislike most is that you decide on your own without any discussion with the parties concerned. Ruling by decree is previous millenium Fidonet.
I am truly peeved.
WD> Tqke cqre, you'll live through this.
I cqn live zithout Fidonet, so yes, I will survive.
