;Date      14 Jan 93  21:55:00
From:      Glen Johnson@1:2605/269
To:        Tom Jennings@1:125/111
Subject:   technical question
Options:   private 
;Status:   recv'd (read 2 times)
;MSGID: 1:2605/269@fidonet 0715c0a4
;PID: FM+ 2.1
;FLAGS DIR

Tom,

We're crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the final draft of Policy 4.1 . 
It should be ready by the weekend. 

Now, we are going to want to have the thing published in Fidonews, but that 
raises a question. 

The document doesn't conform to ARTSPEC.DOC . Its in the same format as the 
current policy 4.07, which I also believe doesn't conform to ARTSPEC.DOC . 

What do we need to do to get it acceptable for publication? If we MAKE it 
conform to ARTSPEC.DOC it'll probably look like hell. How were previous policy 
proposals, like WorldPol submitted to Fidonews? 

Or can you just take the policy document when I send it, and keep it as a 
separate file and include it in the archive? 

How do you want to handle this?

Glen
;Date      15 Jan 93  20:41:42
From:      Tom Jennings@1:125/111
To:        Glen Johnson@1:2605/269
Subject:   re: technical question
Options:   kill-sent private 
;Status:   (read 2 times)
;INTL 1:2605/269 1:125/111
;PID: ReadMail
;MSGID: 1:125/111 2B572186

 GJ> Now, we are going to want to have the thing published in 
 GJ> Fidonews, but that raises a question. 

It's also far, far too long (1) for a single article and (2) any
reasonable human's attention/punishment ability.

My only suggestion is painful for you, but better "you" (authors)
than the 10,000 -- 20,000 readers:

Generate a prose article discussing the "delta" between existing
policy, and the new one. Where applicable, compare actual text,
describe the INTENT/GOAL and the ACTUAL LANGUAGE/IMPLEMENTATION. Only
if you thoroughly explain what's going on will anyone even take you
seriously. 

*Every* previous "policy" attempt has taken the "believe us -- it's
good for you" approach, and has correctly and appropriately been
slagged for it. This is an issue completely separate from the actual
CONTENT of your document.

In other words, you ain't my mother, and even if you was, I wouldn't
do what you say, so there. Pretend I'm a peer instead. Etc.

No sense in pretending "if you understand us, you'll agree that..."
because you know flat out that ain't true. LOTS of people will
disagree. No matter what it is ytou say, with 9,000 people in Z1 alone
you're gonna get dissent... and you ahve to take it all seriously. You
might even learn something, yes, even from the cranks.  (Example:
taking Steve Winter seriously last year re: his HOLY_BIBLE echo and
all taught me a lot about FidoNews editorial process. And he shut up
too.)

Be prepared to grit your teeth, and take a lot of shit. Your work has
just BEGUN, it is *not* almost over. I'm not kidding or exaggerating.
It will take you the rest of the year, is my guess, to get any
reasonable and functional policy change accomplished.


I hope I don't sound overly negative, I'm not. Consider you're
attempting to do something that will affect tens of thousands of
people, in something they believe, and rightly so, to be in their own
control, NOT YOURS. It actually has to be in their best interest, and
you gotta shown them where it is (and if it's not... oh well!)

Good luck!

--- ReadMail
 * Origin: tomj@fidosw.fidonet.org / World Power Systems (1:125/111)
