A private informational message for limited viewing. DO NOT POST!

by Tom Jennings (1:125/111)
30 Aug 92

It has been my understanding for a long time that the Zone
Coordinator (ZC) post is purely administrative, almost exclusively
seeing that the nodelist fragments get to where they are supposed to
go. This was backed up by current and previous ZCs.

This is not what Ron Dwight is up to. He has some very specific
pro-active goals of his own that he seems to be implementing
apparently without regard to anything else.


This past winter I editorialized in FidoNews 9-12 on trouble in zone
2. An exchange of messages with Ron Dwight ensued, in which he stated
(intentionally or otherwise) his goals for changes to FidoNet. 

Basically, he told me that he aims to turn FidoNet into a "technical"
network, presumably by removing "non-technical" and to him, personally
offensive people and conferences. (As an example, I have been
receiving stories of gay/lesbian people and conferences in UK and
W.Germany being harrassed and disconnected by RCs, from people I trust
like Wynn Wagner III.)

He has the common delusion there were "good old days" that we need to
"turn back to", and in the same sentence, says he would never change
how FidoNet is used. Where have I heard this story before.

You can find side effects of Ron Dwight's ideas everywhere in zone 2;
I thought I'd share what appears to be some motivations. If you would
like to quote or refer to this or the source messages that follow,
please contact me.


			Tom Jennings







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.






(* NOTE ADDED BY TJ 30 Aug 92: I never received another message from
Ron regarding this specific conversation. *)
