Original Message Date: 23 Mar 92 01:36:17
From: Ron Dwight on 2:220/22
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: FidoNews editorial
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:220/22
Hi Tom,
       I'd like, in a friendly manner, to take exception to your editorial 
in FidoNews 912.  Not because I feel threatened by it, but simply because 
what you are saying is obviously misinformed and basically untrue.

          For the reason that, like it or not, you ARE an influence to the 
SysOps, I feel you should consider a little before writing something which 
could be potentially damaging to a large number of SysOps.

          I quote from your editorial:-

 > Oh, I bet if you ask a few of the multiple-hundred people about to
 > be viciously cut from the nodelist for not following the arbitrary
 > machinations of a small, greedy power elite, you might find some
 > of them starting to appreciate that redundancy.

          I presume that you are talking about zone 2 here and as I accept 
responsibility for the current situation, you are talking about me.

1)  No-one, I repeat NO-ONE, is about to be cut, viciously or otherwise, 
from the nodelist.  If you have heard differently, then you have heard 
wrong.  It might have been nice to get information directly from the 
horse's mouth, but this is one of the advantages of editorializing, truth 
does not have to be a high priority.

2)  Zone 2 is rapidly deteriorating into a set of locked (closed) nets 
where the criteria for joining are becoming less and less related to 
FidoNet activities.

          One example is in Swizerland.  They have two nets and the net in 
which you are allocated a number is dependant upon whether you charge your 
BBS users for access to International EchoMail or not.

          Another example was that a node was not allowed to join FidoNet 
unless he ran a BBS and had been running it for at least 6 months.  That 
situation has at least changed.

          What I am trying to achieve here in zone 2 is the move back to a 
TECHNICAL net, nothing more.  I believe VERY firmly it's what we should be 
and I have never, nor ever will attempt to influence the USE to which 
FidoNet is put, I simply try to preserve what it IS.

 > If they had been relying on their neighbors for connectivity
 > (and they upon their neighbors, etc) they'd find themselves
 > *completely* at the mercy of the holders of the lists. If the
 > worst happens, as it appears is about to in zone 2,

          Please see above.  I repeat, NO-ONE has been even threatened 
with removal from the zone 2 nodelist.  What I have done, is to remove 
FROM OFFICE, two Regional Coordinators, but they have NEVER been removed 
from the nodelist as a whole.  The removal was in accordance with policy 
and executed according to policy.  Situations have changed somewhat and in 
fact one of them is already back in office as RC.

 > all they have to do is retain the last nodelist they are in,
 > regenerate the net fragments (if necessary), and generate a
 > new nodelist.  Hopefully displacing the idiots trying for the
 > power play.

          I have NO idea who you are talking about here as I am not an 
idiot and certainly not implementing a power-play.  Perhaps you should 
look to Henk Wevers, he was the one who brought up the idea of creating an 
alternate nodelist in zone 2.  You might try finding out who would benefit 
from that particular move.  Don't ask him, FIND OUT.

 > Consider also that the list fragments are COPYRIGHTED TO THE LOCAL
 > NETS.

          Consider also that the copyright must be passed to the 
processing *Cs in order for the nodelist to be MODIFIED and processed by 
MAKENL.

          The statements that you make either as editor of FidoNews or a 
Tom Jennings the founder of FidoNet are capable of having a very profound 
effect on some of the more juvenile minded of FidoNet's SysOps, you have a 
duty and a responsibility to feed them on truth.  I really used to believe 
that you held truth as a worthwhile quality, but I ain't so sure any more.

Ron Dwight, ZC2 and still trying to get something GOOD done.

Original Message Date: 30 Mar 92  01:01:17
From: tom jennings on 1:125/111
To: Ron Dwight on 2:220/22
Subj: re: FidoNews editorial
^AINTL 2:220/22 1:125/111

> I presume that you are talking about zone 2 here and as
> I accept  responsibility for the current situation, you are
> talking about me.

As you wish...

> It might have been nice to get
> information directly from the  horse's mouth, but this is one of
> the advantages of editorializing, truth  does not have to be a
> high priority.

I did. There are other people involved, as well. You may recall, a few 
messages back to jokingly referred to "putting some people into line 
in Zone 2", which I thought was completely inappropriate for a ZC. 

> 2)  Zone 2 is rapidly deteriorating into a set of locked (closed)
> nets  where the criteria for joining are becoming less and less
> related to  FidoNet activities.

Why people join FidoNet is up to them. It is noones business why they 
join. It is not the ZCs job to "manage" the net. 

>  One example is in Swizerland.  They have two nets and
> [..] FidoNet  unless he ran a BBS and had been running it for at 
least
> 6 months.  

I have no information on these, and of course terrible things *are* 
done in FidoNet, by both individual sysops an the so-called *C 
structure. I dont see it as black vs. white.
> 
> What I am trying to achieve here in zone 2 is the move
> back [a] to a  TECHNICAL net, nothing more.  I believe VERY firmly
> it's what we should be [b] and I have never, nor ever will attempt
> to influence the USE [c] to which  FidoNet is put, I simply try to
> preserve what it IS [d].


Ah... the very crux of the problem contained in a few words.

Note my added [x]'s above. [a] [b] and [d] are simply your personal 
interpretations. "should be" is very subjective. "influence the USE" 
is exactly what you are doing. "Back"?! This is fantasy, it was never 
"only technical" and besides, lets move forwards. "What it is" is 
diverse, and trying to push things into some direction you prefer or 
truly believe is correct (others obviously disagree) is exactly the 
problem.

Nor do I simplisticly assume "you" are an Evil Monster controlling 
things, etc. Lots of people belive this stuff. Coupled with 
complacency, and poor communication...

> having a very profound  effect on some of the more juvenile
> minded of FidoNet's SysOps, you have a  duty and a responsibility

No one "knows better" enough to tell others how to run their systems.

The POLICY documents are useless garbage. Anything that gives a ZC the 
power to appoint RCs, then reserves the power to pitch out the ZC to 
the RCs, is a joke. I made my opinion on POLICY4 very clear years ago. 
I do not consider it in force, nor do many others.


I do not wish to cutoff communications. The force with which you 
believe something does not make it true. Other peoples realities are 
equally valid. In fact, FidoNet works quite well, and "consistency" is 
not a virtue. Diversity is. This is communications, not a technical 
corporation. It will not run like a corporation if I have any 
influence. 

If net members want to have multiple overlapping nets within a zone, 
arranged by interest rather than geographic, so be it. Those 
geographic arrangement "rules" were very naively done, here in North 
America, where the "free local call" was the dominant factor. I know. 
I designed it. The playing field has changed, and this concept doesnt 
even exist outside the US! 

----------------

In the future, potential interests of other FidoNet members, I've 
saved your message, and this reply, in a text file. Do you mind if at 
some later date I make this avilable to others? I'll only do so if 
this conversation "goes somewhere". I will save everything from this 
point onward (fair warning :-)

My goal is documentation. I wanted to define the expectation of 
privacy also, anything less would be unfair at best. Let me know what 
you think.

Original Message Date: 02 Apr 92 08:48:35
From: Michael Bravo on 2:5030/2
To: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: ZONE2TXT.ART
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:5030/2
* Zone 2 - what's going on?

by Michael Bravo of 2:5030/2

Hello you out there! The following is a comment triggered by a comment
Tom Jennings made in Fnews 912 about Zone 2. Among other words, he
wrote:

> etc) they'd find themselves *completely* at the mercy of the holders
> of the lists. If the worst happens, as it appears is about to in zone
> 2, all they have to do is retain the last nodelist they are in,
> regenerate the net fragments (if necessary), and generate a new
> nodelist. Hopefully displacing the idiots trying for the power play.

I understand that there's almost no idea outside Zone 2 about what's
going on in there, except muffled rumours. I'd like to clarify the
situation, or at least say how _I_ see it from my place. Well, some
might wonder why the only defence for the whole zone comes from xUSSR
- hmm, I don't know. It's always so in unfair arguments - the right
side prefers to be silent, and those wrong are shouting the most.

Okay, let's go on with the story. What it all started with, our
previous esteemed ZC, Felix Kasza, did resign. The reasons for that is
a separate story, so I will not embark on that. Suffice to say, he was
good ZC, and we all owe him a lot (literally, too - he has paid out of
his own pocket for many, many mails). Then Ron Dwight stepped in. What
he had to begin with, there was no Santa Klaus delivering mail to
regions on his dime, and many people DID have to do something on their
own. The growling began, but invisible as yet. But what really started
the thing, it was simple _suggestion_ ZC made in ENET.SYSOP (Zone 2
sysop echo) that nodelist size can be somewhat reduced with _small_
efforts from *Cs doing their job more thoroughly (well, Tom, noone
complains about big nodelist, but what if it can _really_ be made less
in size without anyone hurt?). Noone was FORCED to do anything or
threatened with anything. It was a _suggestion_. Anyone having reading
skills above such of 7 age old kid could prove that reading Ron's
messages. But the hounds were off the leash. Since that, Ron is
receiving such an amount of bashing, kicking, and outright insults,
that it's a pain just to read ENET.SYSOP. The story continues, but I
don't want to bore you readers with details. If some people  will
write me and tell  they're interested, I can try and make some mor e
reports on the Zone 2, if noone of its sysops don't care <wicked
grin>.

So the abstract is: please don't believe when you're being told about
Zone 2 tiranny - IT DOESN'T EXIST. What does exist, it is stout ZC,
trying to make Fidonet Zone 2 better, looking into the future and not
in his pocket or list of political opponents.

Original Message Date: 13 Apr 92 04:05:06
From: Michael Bravo on 2:5030/2
To: tom jennings on 1:125/111
Subj: The article follows
^AINTL 1:125/111 2:5030/2
*** Answering a msg posted in area MBOX (Personal mail to read/answer).

Hello tom!

Sunday April 05 1992, tom jennings writes to Michael Bravo:

 tj> Thanks for your article; it will run in fidonews 9-14...

It did. Let's see if it'll trigger ANY reaction. Noone wrote so far, 
except you and Ron Dwight...

 tj> There are other sides to this issue. I dont pretend to knwo them all.
 tj> Neither side are all angels. Different people have different agendas,
 tj> and treat different people differently.

Sure. I just told what _I_ am thinking. IMHO, if , say, half of the Fido 
sysops _cared_ about what is going on around them, Fidonews would have to 
change publishing policy or go hardcover :)

 tj> In any case, I wish you luck, and thanks again for the article!!

Thanks for you too! After all, it was you who started the whole thing. Two 
years ago I did read the word 'telecommunications' or 'BBS' as a fair 
dream only. Today I am an NC, have had my own BBS (now closed because it 
did ran on college equipment, so I'm collecting some scrap details around 
to put up something at home), currently sysoping a BBS in another small 
private company, helped to rise a dozen of nodes and a couple of nets, had 
hundreds of talks with exciting people, got tens of new friends etc etc 
etc. So thanks again!

/\/\ike

---

Original Message Date: 04 Aug 92  21:11:22
From: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
To: matt on 3:3/1000
Subj: Ron Dwight...
^AINTL 3:3/1000 1:125/111
He does seem to be a royal pain in the ass. What is his problem?! I 
get weekly complaints about heavy-handed behaviour; ignoring elections,
threats, etc.  Ihad an argument with him once. He talked about FidoNet 
"returning to the old days" and all that horseshit.  I told him 
outright, no such shit existed. Stuff about content; should be 
technical only etc.
 
I think he's a flaming asshole and should be tossed out on his ear. In 
case you were about to ask... :-)
 
(I get complaints about lots of things, both because I'm 1:1/1 (people 
seem to think it a magical address) and because of my name. I have to 
say at least half of them are quite rational-looking, and jive with my 
experiences with him. He thinks he's god.)


Original Message Date: 04 Aug 92  23:54:28
From: Brian Timmins on 2:251/666
To: Tom Jennings on 1:1/1
Subj: Region25
^AFLAGS A/S,DIR
Hi Tom,
 
This is more for information than the desire to bother you, or the hope 
that you might wish or be able to do anything.
 
Best Regards, Brian
 
 
Here follows a letter sent to Matt Whelan:
 
 
 
Msg # 1696   Private, Archive/Sent, Direct, $2.72
Date: 04 Aug 92  23:50:20
From: Brian Timmins on 2:251/666  RIDJEK THOME Mail Centre in Emsworth
  To: Matt Whelan on 3:3/1000  International Coordinator in Sydney Nsw 
Australia
Subj: Region 25

____________________________________________________________________________
 
Hello Matt,
 
Sorry to be a pain but I wish to register a formal objection to the
high-handed treatment of Region25 by the ZC, Ron Dwight.
 
Given the peculiar circumstances, I have no objection to the appointment of
an RC pro tem - TO HOLD AN ELECTION.
 
I have a strong objection to having anyone forced on me and I suggest it is
contrary to everything that FidoNET stands for.
 
Brian Timmins


Original Message Date: 06 Aug 92 06:08:29
From: Paul Dickie on 2:256/62
To: Tom Jennings on 1:1/1
Subj: Wherever he is (or just forward to R
^AINTL 1:1/1 2:256/62
 * Forwarded from "REGION25"
 * Originally by Pete Hosey
 * Originally to Noel Bradford
 * Originally dated 4 Aug 1992, 20:17

In message to all Noel Bradford the pretend RC said:

> Ladies & Gentlemen,
>
> As you are now ALL fully aware I have been appointed RC by
> the ZC, Ron
> Dwight. Please believe me when I say that this has came as
> a complete shock to
> me. I don't really want the job as it makes me look like
> Ron's minion,

If you don't really want the job  why have you got it?????  And as far as 
looking like Ron's minion you not only look it you have his name stamped 
all over your forehead.  Not a very good start is it - trying to con us 
all?

> Which I am NOT!. I feel my duty as RC is to serve the
> Region.

The best thing you can do if you really feel that your duty is to serve 
the region would be to call a bona fide election and allow the region to 
select their own RC.

> These are the Proposals that I have put forward to the NC
> for there
> consideration.

Thankyou for putting the word *I* in the above.  So these are your 
proposals on behalf of the sysops are they?

> 1) In accordance with Ron's wishes I remain 25/0.

In accordance with Rons Wishes!!!  I thought you said a) you didn't want 
the job and b) that you weren't Rons minion and c) that you were here to 
serve the region!  So what's this then?  A sudden change of heart?  Boy 
you're gonna go a long way!!

2) I function purely as an RC in the strictest technical
> sense
> (ie nodelist etc)

Yes but always in accordance with Rons wishes - don't forget to add that!!

> 3) The NC's form a council to discuss any of the changes
> that RD
> requires thus removing any POWER that I may have as RC. I
> will act as
> chairman of the council and have NO voting rights as such
                                   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
A bit like the position us sysops are in!!

> Task: Find some way to stabilize the region.

Solution: Allow the sysops in this region to elect an RC as is our 
democratic way.  Kick out the power mongers and those who wish to impose 
their will on others then it will be not only stable but will also return 
to being a hobby instead of an arena for meglomaniacs!!

In short matey up yours!!

Pete.

--- D'Bridge 1.30/006666
 * Origin: TAHUTI - Coventry +44 203 598939 (2:253/175)

