     Volume 6, Number 26                                  26 June 1989
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                                  _            |
     |                                                 /  \          |
     |                                                /|oo \         |
     |        - FidoNews -                           (_|  /_)        |
     |                                                _`@/_ \    _   |
     |        International                          |     | \   \\  |
     |     FidoNet Association                       | (*) |  \   )) |
     |         Newsletter               ______       |__U__| /  \//  |
     |                                 / FIDO \       _//|| _\   /   |
     |                                (________)     (_/(_|(____/    |
     |                                                     (jm)      |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     Editor in Chief:                                  Vince Perriello
     Editors Emeritii:                                     Dale Lovell
                                                        Thom Henderson
     Chief Procrastinator Emeritus:                       Tom Jennings
     
     FidoNews  is  published  weekly  by  the  International   FidoNet
     Association  as  its  official newsletter.  You are encouraged to
     submit articles for publication in FidoNews.  Article  submission
     standards  are contained in the file ARTSPEC.DOC,  available from
     node 1:1/1.    1:1/1  is  a Continuous Mail system, available for
     network mail 24 hours a day.
     
     Copyright 1989 by  the  International  FidoNet  Association.  All
     rights  reserved.  Duplication  and/or distribution permitted for
     noncommercial purposes only.  For  use  in  other  circumstances,
     please contact IFNA at (314) 576-4067. IFNA may also be contacted
     at PO Box 41143, St. Louis, MO 63141.
     
     Fido  and FidoNet  are registered  trademarks of  Tom Jennings of
     Fido Software,  164 Shipley Avenue,  San Francisco, CA  94107 and
     are used with permission.
     
     We  don't necessarily agree with the contents  of  every  article
     published  here.  Most of these materials are  unsolicited.    No
     article will be rejected which is properly attributed and legally
     acceptable.    We   will  publish  every  responsible  submission
     received.


                        Table of Contents
     1. EDITORIAL  ................................................  1
     2. ARTICLES  .................................................  2
        Policy 4: FidoNet now a Nazi Dictatorship?  ...............  2
        The Old Frog's Almanac - TopicX on the job!  ..............  7
        National Teachers Training Competition  ................... 12
        Official report on Eurocon III  ........................... 14
        FidoNet Policy -- Why Bother?  ............................ 24
        A View From Outside?  ..................................... 26
        Universal Mayhem Gains Strength  .......................... 28
        Stepping Lightly through the Hornet's Nest  ............... 31
        Proposal for a Public Nodelist  ........................... 37
     And more!
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 1                   26 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                 EDITORIAL
     =================================================================

     I wanted  to write an editorial this week.  I sat down and  wrote
     about half of one.  Then I decided that it wouldn't make a damned
     bit of difference and deleted the text.

     You people going around calling others jerks should consider that
     it's all a matter of  perspective who the heroes and villains are
     in this network.  How about giving  FidoNet  some  thought  for a
     change?

     Nahhhhh.

     Phooey!

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 2                   26 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                 ARTICLES
     =================================================================

     FidoNet hits ANOTHER New Low!

     by Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583 (at least until the RC's read this)

     (By the way, this may be some sort of record!  TWO "New Lows" in
     a month!)

     Well, I do believe the world may be coming to an end.

     I actually AGREE with Jim Grubs on something!  ;-)

     This past week, many of you received a number of messages
     protesting the institution of Policy 4 by the RC's.  These
     messages were HOST ROUTED by Jim Grubs.  This is commonly called
     a 'bombing run', and for those unfamiliar with it, is considered
     'impolite', the theory being that if you're going to send out
     several hundred messages, you shouldn't make the routing points
     pay for distribution of your note, it should go on YOUR dime.
     This has happened in the past, particularly in Net 107, where
     there are over 200 nodes.  What usually happens is the offending
     party (usually ignorant of this rule) gets a couple of nastygrams
     from NC's and RC's, and promises not to do it again.

     Sometimes a Policy Complaint is filed, and the node promises not
     to do it again.

     End of discussion.

     Unfortunately, Jim Grubs was unaware of this 'gentlemens
     agreement' and routed his messages, which contained serious
     questions regarding Policy 4 and the RC's alleged grab for power.
     Hal DuPrie rightfully filed a policy complaint, though I expect
     he too, thought JG would be told not to do it again, that JG
     would apologize, and that would be the end of it.

     This sparked a discussion between Jim Grubs and Steve Bonine, the
     RC of Jim's region.  Jim admitted that he was unfamiliar with
     said 'bombing run' rules.  Unfortunately, in that discussion,
     Grubs questioned the legitimacy of Policy 4, and implied that it
     was illegal in nature, and would not be followed.

     Steve Bonine then removed him from this week's nodelist.

     That action is patently ridiculous, and for those who know him in
     his region, patently Bonine.  (I invite others in his region to
     corroborate this.  Perhaps the Net who's NC was almost removed
     for not bowing down to his demands concerning nodelist entries
     BEFORE the deadline will step forward.)

     Mere statements made in the heat of the moment should not be
     actionable.  It is the ACTION that should be considered illegal,
     and for Bonine to remove Jim Grubs because he disagrees with
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 3                   26 Jun 1989


     Policy 4 is ABSURD in the EXTREME.

     What's next?  Randy Bush is to be excommunicated because he
     published anti-Policy 4 articles?  Watch out, Randy!

     From FNEWS622:

          Date:   15 May 89  10:04:16
          From:   Randy Bush of 105/6
          To:     David Dodell 1/0
          Subj:   Formal Objection to Proposed Method of Policy-4
                  Ratification

          David,

          I hereby file a formal objection to and complaint about the
          method by which you, the IC/ZC and the RCs, are attempting to
          put a new FidoNet policy, Policy-4, in place.

          You have unilaterally declared that it will be ratified by a
          procedure described for the first time within the document
          itself, and not by the procedure(s) in place now, before the
          document is accepted.

          Policies 1 through 3 were adopted by a consensus of the net as a
          whole, and P3 was subsequently (though irrevelantly, IMHO)
          ratified by IFNA.  At the time Policy-3 was adopted, it was
          assumed that time would require new policy, and the the new
          policy would be adopted by means similar to that of Policies
          1-3.

          If and only if Policy-4 is accepted, then the procedure outlined
          in Policy-4 is appropriate for adopting a Policy-5 or whatever.
          But, there is absolutely no grounds under current FidoNet policy
          and procedures for Policy-4 to be adopted by just the *Cs.

          I formally object, and deny your right to use such procedures,
          and deny the validity of any policy purportedly adopted by such
          a means.

          randy (with apologies for being a stickler as usual)

     Well, speaking from 1:107/583 (for now, anyway), this is Phil
     Buonomo (who has also called Jim Grubs a "no good bastard" in the
     past, but hates to see ANYBODY get the shaft from the
     establishment) forwarding this discussion to you, directly from
     Jim Grubs:

      * Forwarded from 1:234/1, Private Node - No Trespassing,
      Sylvania OH
      * Originally to Steve Bonine, 1:115/777
      * Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:44 6/22

      > cc:  Pete White
      >      David Dodell
      >      Jim Dunmyer
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 4                   26 Jun 1989


      >
      >>cc: Pete White <R16C>, David Dodell, Steve Bonine, Jim Dunmyer
      >> Jim,
      >> I have all the information regarding the Policy Complaint
      >> filed by Hal DuPrie at 101/0.  I feel the complaint is
      >> fully justified as the `bombing run' has always been
      >> considered `exceedingly annoying'.

      >JG> I already conceded in my messages to Mr. Dunmyer that I was
      >JG> in error about my interpretation of the meaning of the
      >JG> rules on bombing  runs.  As to the comment about Mr.
      >JG> Duprie's attitude on demcocracy, that is my interpretation
      >JG> of his words and actions. I'm entitled to my opinion, which
      >JG> remains unchanged.

      >JG> The question which remains unanswered is the legitimacy of
      >JG> Policy 4.  You can neither excommunicate nor canonize
      >JG> under a policy document that was not legally adopted.
      >JG> The rules under which it was adopted were made up
      >JG> unilaterally as the process went along. Furthermore, I was
      >JG> not a part of the process. The *C's can enter into all
      >JG> the agreements among themselves they want to. They can't
      >JG> force people who were not a party to that agreement to
      >JG> comply with it. I could organize a bunch of sysops and
      >JG> 'pass' Policy 7-requiring the *C's to wear mirrored
      >JG> eyeshades and carry nerf bats, too. So, what?  Do as you
      >JG> wish. You will anyway.
      >JG> 73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT

      > I am accepting the above message as an affirmation of your
      > desire to terminate your relationship with FidoNet, since you
      > do not wish to observe FidoNet policy.  I will remove your
      > nodelist entry, effective immediately.  Thank you for your
      > past contributions to FidoNet, many of which have  been
      > positive. Should you have a change of heart, and decide that
      > you are willing to be bound by FidoNet policy, please re-apply
      > for a node number.

     I am willing to observe and comply with Fidonet policy. What I
     deny is that Policy 4 IS Fidonet policy. It was not adopted
     legally. You are attempting  to make it "legal" by bludgeoning
     all dissenters. It is THAT attempt that I  repudiate. If you have
     Policy 4 ratified by a referendum of ALL Fidonet  sysops, you'll
     have my full suport. Until then, forget it.

     73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT
     ----------

      * Forwarded from 1:234/100, EchoMaster, Temperance MI
      * Originally from Jim Dunmeyer, 1:234/0
      * Originally to Jim Grubs, 1:234/1
      * Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:47 6/22

     Jim,
      I have just spoken with Steve Bonine on the phone, and he
      verified that he has in fact removed your node number from this
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 5                   26 Jun 1989


      week's NODELIST. This was not due in any way to your views on
      democracy or anything else, only your statement that you do not
      feel bound in any way by POLICY.

     There is no choice for me but to follow through on this. As of
     tomorrow AM, you will not be in the nodelist; in the meantime all
     other signs of your  existance here are being removed
     (distribution list, AREAFIX password,  AREAS.BBS, etc.) It
     saddens me greatly to have to do this, as I feel as  Steve does:
     you have made contributions to the Net, but as a member, you
     must agree to abide by policy. There are mechanisms in place to
     change  Policy, but negativity won't do the job, and in the
     meantime, what you see  is what we have to work with.

     If you change your mind on agreeing with Policy, please FREQ
     NODEREQ3.ARC from here and follow the Doc's.

     Thanks, and sorry...                              <<Jim>> *
     ----------

      * Forwarded from 1:234/1, Private Node - No Trespassing,
      Sylvania OH
      * Originally to Jim Dunmyer, 1:234/100
      * Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:48 6/22

     I regard Policy 4 as having been illegally adopted. It therefore
     is NOT Fidonet policy. If it was, I would abide by it. Steve is
     trying to browbeat  people into swearing allegience to it as a
     means for getting around the  fact it was illegally adopted. Does
     that sound right to you?

     73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT
     ----------

      * Forwarded from 1:234/1, Private Node - No Trespassing,
      Sylvania OH
      * Originally to David Dodell, 1:114/15
      * Forwarded by Jim Grubs, 1011/1, 13:45 6/22

     From one point of view I would be willing to be "purged" because
     I know the resulting anger would contribute to bringing Steve
     Bonine down. He's been  like a rampaging Cossack trampling the
     peasants under his horse's hooves  from the very beginning of his
     appointment. It's not just me. He can't get  along with anyone.
     He likes to exercise power for its own sake.

     Instead I choose to fight back. I appeal his arbitrary and
     capricious decision to you. He cannot hold me or anyone to
     account for violations  against a Fidonet Policy that that does
     not exist. Because it was illegally  adopted, Policy 4 is NOT
     Fidonet policy. If it was I would abide by it.

     I said it before and I say it again: before the summer is over,
     David, Bonine will have blundered you into another Freenet
     rebellion. You can  disagree all you want to about the logic of
     Policy 4, etc. If it is not  what people want, it will never
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 6                   26 Jun 1989


     succeed. Fidonet consists of BBS'es and  their sysops. What THEY
     want is the only thing that counts - even if they  don't want
     what you or Steve think they SHOULD want. Anything else is
     classic tail wagging the dog. (Pun intended.)

     I am personally willing to accept as a compromise an announcement
     that within two or three weeks there will be a sysop referendum
     to ratify Policy  4. I will never accept being bullied into
     pretending to agree with an illegal document that makes no
     meaningful provisions for democratic control  by sysops over
     THEIR network.

     73 de Jim Grubs, W8GRT
     --------------

     Well, that about says it all.  If you're as outraged as I am,
     please put your feelings to keyboard and let David Dodell, Steve
     Bonine, and the other RC's know that you're not going to let them
     push you around.  If you like, you can use my following message:

     To: David Dodell, 1/0
     From: Phil Buonomo, 1:107/583
     Subject: Objection!

     cc: Steve Bonine

     Sir,

     I most strenuously object to the removal of Jim Grubs from the
     FidoNet nodelist.  There are many legitimate concerns among
     FidoNet sysops regarding the adoption of Policy 4, and the flat
     out elimination of those voicing such concerns teters on the
     brink of Brown Shirt tactics of early Nazi Germany.  While Jim
     Grubs has always been vocal in nature, and annoying at times, it
     is patently WRONG to remove someone from the nodelist for voicing
     opinion in a non-excessively annoying manner.

     It is actions such as these that have spurred the creation of
     alternate Networks, such as AlterNet, in the past.  The sysops of
     FidoNet will NOT condone these heavy handed tactics, and if you
     allow them to continue, it will be the downfall of yourselves,
     and FidoNet as a viable entity.

     With FidoNet's best interests at heart,

     Philip J. Buonomo



     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 7                   26 Jun 1989


                    TopicX Topical Extraction System

     The last time I ran a series on my extraction process for The Old
     Frog's Almanac, I described how Sirius, EGREP, and my packer  all
     worked together to produce an enormous variety of topical  files.
     These  files (there are now over 1300 of them) required a lot  of
     system time, enormous amounts of drive space, and untold hours of
     work to maintain....

     The series of articles I entered here resulted in a wave of  file
     requests  from  all  over North America,  and  just  about  every
     country  in Zone 2. ALMANAC.LZH, which contained all  the  sample
     batch  files, Sirius scripts, and a few related files,  was  soon
     distributed world-wide as more sysops decided to begin their  own
     extraction systems.

     One  sysop  who found himself "hooked" by the  extraction  system
     became  more  and more frustrated at both the complexity  of  the
     process  and the time required to complete it. Scott  Dudley,  an
     Ontario  (Canada) programmer, decided to write a  single  utility
     which  would do the entire job in a single pass, and  TopicX  was
     born.

     I  heard  from Scott soon after he began working on TopicX  -  he
     sent  me a note (which amounted to the sum total of  what  passed
     as  TopicX  "documentation")  explaining what he was  working on,
     and  asked  me  if  I would  help him test it. I wrote  back  and
     said "sure," but didn't hear from Scott again until late January,
     when  he sent me the first beta copy, along with  an  extensively
     documented configuration file, and wished me luck.

     By the time I began testing TopicX, I had expanded the  Almanac's
     extraction  system to the point where it was taking 90 minutes  a
     day  to complete, so I was ready for anything that  promised  (as
     TopicX did) to speed things up. I was (might as well be honest  -
     it  WAS  a  raw beta system) unwilling  (hell,  I  was  downright
     scared) to let TopicX run unattended, as the Sirius/EGREP  system
     did,  so  I began by assigning a single message area to  the  new
     program,  and running it manually whenever I had the  time.  When
     problems crept up, I'd send Scott a note, he'd fix them, send  me
     another  copy, and the cycle would begin again. On the  12th.  of
     June,  TopicX V1.0, the end result of four and a half  months  of
     testing,  was  released.  By  then, Sirius  and  EGREP  had  been
     retired, and TopicX was doing the entire job.....

     .....in 15 minutes instead of 90!

     Got your attention? Good....now I'll explain the GOOD stuff :-)

     One problem with the Sirius/EGREP system, as nice as  it  was, is
     that I could never figure out a way to put the "working" archives
     into the directories where they would eventually end up. Instead,
     they collected in a work area for an entire month, and were  then
     moved manually (using Fido-Fam) to wherever they belonged.  Since
     there  were usually about 300 of them by the end of the month,  I
     could kiss the better part of one day a month goodbye while I sat
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 8                   26 Jun 1989


     here moving those damned files around.

     TopicX  puts them wherever I want them, so I don't have  to  move
     diddly-squat...

     I also had to edit the EGREP batch file every month, in order  to
     change  the  month designator, and, although it only took  a  few
     seconds,  I often forgot, and ended up collecting January's  mail
     into December's topical archives.

     TopicX permits me to use variables in the output file names, so I
     don't  have  to  worry about editing in new  date  specs  at  the
     beginning of the month.

     TopicX uses a single configuration file for the entire job - it's
     a standard ASCII file, so it's simple to set up and easy to edit.
     It  lets  you  designate  whether or not  you  want  blank  lines
     stripped out, use a custom dividing line between messages (if you
     want  one),  designate your favorite packer, assign  macros,  use
     UNIX-style  pattern-matching tricks, archive or not  archive  the
     text  files,  and so many other features that I am not  going  to
     attempt to list them all.

     The  program runs pretty well under DESQview, although  it  hangs
     sometimes in my 340k window - (Scott doesn't know that yet, but I
     suspect  he'll have it fixed a day or two after he reads this  :-
     )), and early versions couldn't handle large configuration files.
     Scott  fixed that problem by adding a memory  management  feature
     which  lets  you designate how much RAM to  reserve  for  message
     processing, and I can now run my 36K TopicX.Cfg file without  any
     problems.  He also added a pre-compile to speed things up,  which
     further reduced processing time....

     I  could go on all night about TopicX - I LOVE it - but I  won't.
     It's  a  dandy piece of software engineering, the docs  are  more
     precise  and  easier  to understand than  most,  and  the  sample
     configuration  file  which comes with the release version  is  so
     well  done that many of you will be able to set up an  extraction
     system  without ever reading the docs. So, rather than  carry  on
     for  another two pages, I'll just tell you to use the magic  word
     TOPICX  and  get  started. It's available  from  1:153/20  (HST),
     1:153/194   (2400),   1:250/814  (2400)  (AKA   7:483/202),   and
     1:250/810. My HST now uses European guard tones, so come and  get
     it, no matter where you are - you'll love it too!

     TopicX is shareware, and the unregistered version won't run  from
     a batch file, but it's a full-featured version  that'll  maintain
     both NetMail and  EchoMail areas  flawlessly, and it's only US$15
     to register in any case - a helluva deal for anyone with  message
     management problems!

     Ken McVay, SysOp                                     TOPX_100.LZH
     The Old Frog's Almanac (153/20, 153/194)             62223  Bytes
     Nanaimo, British Columbia, CANADA                      ("TOPICX")

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 9                   26 Jun 1989


     Chuck Allen,  1:129/41


     In his FidoNews 6-25 editorial, Vince Perriello commented:

     Quote: Vince Perriello

     Isn't there anyone else in Zone 1 who has something to say?
     These guys are so prolific they're putting you all to shame ...

     End Quote

     You're right Vince.  Quite a few people have something to say,
     many hold their peace in fear.  I know my hand has been stayed
     by the desire of the RC structure to meddle in the affairs of
     FidoNews.  They aren't content to wreck havoc only within
     FidoNet.

     My net (129) knows I have taken a dim view of Policy 4, a
     document written by small minded and mean spirited men who are
     morally and ethically bankrupt.  I am proud that net 129 was one
     of the nets voting "NO".  I am ashamed the "NO" vote was decided
     by a tiny minority of sysops in 129 who expressed an opinion.
     The vast majority kept silent (didn't care?).

     I'll take this opportunity to comment on Tom Jenning's brief
     article in FidoNews 6-25

     Quote: Tom Jennings

     Since I see my name is getting dragged into this, I thought I'd
     respond on the subject of Zone 2's autonomy, which is really an
     issue of control.

     First of all, no one need worry about trademark abuse; I am in
     contact with all parties involved, and there is nothing to worry
     about. Things will be settled to everyones benefit and
     satisfaction. No further discussion is needed on this matter.

     End Quote

     Sounds good to me.  Maybe we can get on to more important things
     like discussing the alleged skid marks in the IC's undershorts.

     Quote: Tom Jennings

     It is none of our business how Zone 2 (or any other zone) runs
     their network(s), other than how they interface to us, just as
     it is no business to net 125 how net XYZ runs theirs, unless it
     somehow physically affects our operation. If they have different
     criteria for joining a network, what business is it of ours? To
     meddle ahead of time "in case they do something awful", is
     silly; they are no more (or less) likely to do something stupid
     than we in Zone 1 are. Europe is not just the U.S.-only-
     different; it is a totally different environment, socially,
     technically, legally and politically. Europe is none of our damn
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 10                  26 Jun 1989


     business.

     End Quote

     Tom, I agree wholeheartedly.  How do you suggest we rid
     ourselves of leadership hell bent on exercising control?  You've
     pointed out the problem, how about proposing a solution?

     Quote: Tom Jennings

     Zone 1 is not the police force of the world. Have we not learned
     our lessons from other arenas? We do not "have" a unified world-
     wide network, nor is such a thing even desirable. What we do
     have is a number of cooperative networks, that can cooperate in
     a world-wide networking effort. This is a critical difference.

     End Quote

     Geez Tom, you don't pull any punches, do you?  You're going to
     be lucky if on of the myriad *Cs doesn't file a formal policy
     complaint against you for embracing that sort of concept.  Rumor
     has it the *C structure is advising China on how to suppress the
     movement toward democracy, their having great experience
     squashing dissent in FIdoNet.

     Quote: Tom Jennings

     Unfortunately, meddlers and control freaks will not give up
     until everything not exactly like themselves is squashed or
     controlled. Or they are in turn removed. We have a growing
     bureaucracy in our Zone 1 that wants to reorganize us from being
     a bottom-up network, where sysops choose their net hosts and
     other /0's, and determine how to run their own BBS, nets and
     lives, to one (according to POLICY4) where the existing
     bureaucracy picks their own region and net hosts. Bureaucrats
     always tell us, if they can control this one more thing, then
     all the problems will be solved.

     End Quote

     Now you've gone and done it.  By fingering the problem, it looks
     like you are a malcontent and should be dealt with under policy
     4 before you can do any substantial damage to the control
     freaks, er, the ZC and his mindless minions, the RCs.

     Don't you know the hundreds and thousands of hours they've spent
     seeking ways to force us into the mold?  Don't you appreciate
     the massive effort they've exerted to control us for our own
     good?  What are you, an ingrate or what?

     Quote: Tom Jennings

     Our network has never run smoothly, and I propose that it will
     *never* run smoothly; this is good, not bad. It means we're
     alive, only dead rigid bureaucracies are pure order. (Or pretend
     they are.) Excessive order is not good for any organism. It
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 11                  26 Jun 1989


     stifles creativity and free expression. Let's take a hint from
     history, OK?

     End Quote

     Ok, sounds good to me.

     Now, how do we reach the average sysop who doesn't care and
     isn't interested in "net politics"?  How do we reach the sysop
     who has no concern beyond when the next echomail archive
     arrives?  How can we open the eyes and minds of people who have
     no desire to exercise freedom and creativity?

     Damn, Tom, you talk a good fight.  But you have to know the
     control freaks are going to blow you off and the average sysop
     has no idea of what you're talking about.

     Why not simply make a statement like "Policy 4 sucks and the ZC
     and his appointed automatons should be removed and replaced with
     people more interested in administrating than in ruling."?  Why
     not say Steve Bonine is an ass for causing Jack Decker grief by
     rigidly imposing the "geography rule" for the sake of the rule
     as versus the application of reason and common sense in
     administering Policy guidelines?

     What am I saying?  Get some guts Tom, set aside the rhetoric and
     lead the revolution.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 12                  26 Jun 1989


     Claude F. Witherspoon
     Fido 1:288/525
     Home of KidsNews

                  National Teachers Training Competition

     Its that time of year again. Computer Learning Month will be upon
     us before we know it. With that in mind,  we  at  KidsNews  would
     like  to  share  the  following information in hopes to make this
     year even better than last year:

     CLF  TAKES  LEAD  IN  SUPPORT  OF  COMPUTER  CLASSROOM  TRAINING;
     SPONSORS NATIONAL TEACHER TRAINING COMPETITION

     Palo  Alto,  Calif.,  (April  4,  1989)  -- The Computer Learning
     Foundation  (CLF),  a  non-profit   organization   dedicated   to
     advancing  computer  literacy,  today  announced sponsorship of a
     national  teacher  training  competition  as  part  of  its   new
     television  series  entitled  School Vision, which focuses on the
     integration of technology into elementary and secondary classroom
     curricula. School Vision airs weekly on public broadcast stations
     around the country and in Canada.

     "CLF is dedicated  to  acting  as  a  central  clearinghouse  for
     teacher  training  ideas  and providing teachers with support and
     ideas on how computers  can  be  used  more  effectively  in  the
     classroom,"  said Sally Bowman, CLF director. "As part of our new
     School Vision broadcast, the Foundation will be able to  showcase
     exemplary  training  programs,  which  in  turn  will  help  seed
     additional ideas  and  increased  enthusiasm  for  teaching  with
     computers."

     According to the U.S. Department of Education, there are nearly 3
     million   elementary   and   secondary   school   educators   and
     administrators in the United States. A 1988 study commissioned by
     the House Committee on Education and Labor of the  U.S.  Congress
     entitled  "Power  On"  was  conducted by the Office of Technology
     Assessment (OTA) and indicated that "only one-third of  all  K-12
     teachers  have  had  as  much  as 10 hours of computer training."
     Additionally, the study noted that much of that training time has
     been dedicated to instructing teachers about how computers  work,
     not how to teach and integrate them into the classroom curricula.

     As  the  number of computers in schools increases annually -- the
     installed base is expected to increase 100 percent from 3 million
     in 1987 to nearly 6 million by 1990 -- the need for  teachers  to
     have  more  computer  training  and  support  on how to integrate
     technology into their classrooms becomes evem more  critical.  To
     facilitate  these efforts, CLF is taking the lead by sponsoring a
     national teacher training competition. Many of  the  program  and
     computer  learning  ideas  submitted to the foundation as part of
     its  1989  competition  will  be  made  available  to   educators
     throughout  North  America through CLF's School Vision broadcasts
     and through lesson plan publications.

     Recognition will  be  given  to  top  teacher  training  programs
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 13                  26 Jun 1989


     developed  for  early  childhood  education,  special  education,
     curriculum  integration   (combining  social   studies,   foreign
     laguages,  writing,  art/music, math, science), and the "at risk"
     population. The grand prize winning entry in  CLF's  competition,
     which  is  open  to individuals and organizations in the U.S. and
     Canada, will receive three computer systems. One system  will  be
     awarded  to  the  individual  who  developes the winning training
     module/program; one system to the  school  or  organization  that
     acts  as  host  of  the  training  program; and one system to the
     individual or organization that videotapes the  presentation.  In
     addition,  second  prize  winning  entries  will receive software
     programs for the teacher  training  program  developer  and  host
     school. Top entries will be aired on CLF's School Vision program.
     To request official entry forms  and  rules,  individuals  should
     write   to:   Teacher  Training  Competition,  Computer  Learning
     Foundation, P.O. Box 60400, Palo Alto,  Calif.,  94306-0400.  All
     entries must be postmarked by September 1, 1989.

     School Vision is broadcast via local PBS stations, with dates and
     times  varying  depending  on location. Parents and educators are
     encouraged  to  contact  their  local  public  broadcast  station
     program  managers  and  ask  that the School Vision broadcasts be
     picked up, via satellite, from the Central Education Network  for
     local viewing. Spearheading the development and production of the
     weekly  School  Vision  programs  is  a coalition of industry and
     educational  organizations,  including  the   Central   Education
     Network  (CEN),  Software  Communications  Services (SCS) and the
     CLF. The School Vision video briefings will be presented  through
     WCET,  Cincinnati  and  the  Ohio  Network  Broadcasting  Network
     Commission.

     The Computer Learning Foundation sponsors Computer Learning Month
     programs each October. The non-profit organization, based in Palo
     Alto, Calif., is supported by  leading  software  publishers  and
     computer  manufacturers,  including IBM, as well as 52 U.S. State
     Departments of Education and Canadian  Ministries  of  Education,
     and more than 20 national non-profit organizations.

     Published  with  permission  of  the Computer Learning Foundation
     (CLF), Palo Alto, Calif.

     I  have  initiated  a  National  Computer  Learning  Month   echo
     available  on Fido 1:288/525 by request. If you are interested in
     carrying the echo which uses the name NCLM, please send a request
     to Butch Witherspoon, Fido 1:288/525 (Continuous Mail (CM)),  and
     I  will  be  happy  to  tie you into the echo and send it to your
     system. You must be able  to  accept  continuous  Mail  for  this
     request.  This  offer  is  good  for  the U.S. only until someone
     offeres to gateway the echo to other regions. I would like to see
     the echo carried on the Backbone if folks are interested enough.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 14                  26 Jun 1989


     Peter Janssens
     Fidonet 2:512/1

     Official Report on Eurocon III.
     ------------------------------

     The following items have been addressed at Eurocon III:

     A) Resignation of ZC2, Henk Wevers (2:500/1).
     B) Appointment / election of new ZC2.
     C) Cost and quality of echomail.
     D) Opinion on IFNA, by Randy Bush (1:105/6).
     E) Proposed Fidonet Policy 4.06.
     F) Foundation of European Fidonet Organisation; EFO.


     A) Resignation of ZC2, Henk Wevers (2:500/1).
     --------------------------------------------
     In 1988, at Eurocon II, Henk Wevers already announced that he
     would resign as ZC2. This announcement was repeated in ENET.SYSOP
     (Zone 2 sysop conference) a few months ago.
     Before Henk addressed the nomination procedure for his replacement
     he explained some developments in the past year.

     Henk Wevers visited Fidocon in August 1988 whwre he agreed with
     the Zone 1 sysops, including the ZC1, that Fidonet would need
     major Policies for each Zone with an overall Policy for the
     Fidonet world.
     At that time Zone 1 was ruled by Policy 3 whereas Zone 2 already
     had adopted Policy 4E, being an adjusted Policy 4 draft from Ben
     Baker, dated Feb 7, 1988.

     To his disapppointment the Zone 1 *C's did not hold the agreement
     upright when Fidocon was finished and came with a proposal for an
     elaborate new world Policy without consideration for the different
     needs that each Zone would have for such a Policy.

     As an example Henk explained that in Zone 1 geographically
     overlapping nets do not exist and are disallowed by the proposed
     Policy whereas nearly every Region in Zone 2 _does_ have
     overlapping nets.

     Henk tried several times to find support against the proposal at
     the Zone 2 RC's. However, he got no feedback and finally decided
     to finish the ongoing discussion with the Zone 1 *C's about the
     proposal.

     This discussion has been very demanding for him and the outcome
     strengthened him in his decision to resign as ZC2.


     B) Appointment / election of new ZC2.
     ------------------------------------
     As mentioned above Henk Wevers has asked for candidates for the
     position of ZC2 in ENET.SYSOP. Three sysops responded to his
     appeal and presented themselves as candidates.
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 15                  26 Jun 1989


     They were: Werner Cappel (2:515/30), Ron Dwight (2:515/1) and Nik
     Middleton (2:252/114).

     Two weeks before the start of Eurocon III Henk wrote a crash
     netmail to each candidate with a request to explain their
     qualifications for being a ZC2 as well as the programme they had.
     He received only one reply from Ron Dwight.

     Henk also noted that Ron was the only candidate who was present at
     Eurocon III.

     This formed a strong feeling amongst everyone present that Ron was
     to be considered the only serious candidate for the job.

     Henk ended his speech here and Louis van Geel stood up and
     expressed the gratitude towards Henk Wevers on behalf of all Zone
     2 participants for having done an outstanding job as co-founder of
     European Fidonet and ZC2.

     Ron Dwight was then asked to present his goals and targets if he
     would be nominated the new ZC2.

     He explained that his "mission" and prime goal as a ZC2 would be
     to establish democracy in Zone 2 and as a part of this he would
     work towards official elections of NC's, RC's and the post of ZC
     before Eurocon IV.
     This would include a new Zone 2 Policy which should be approved /
     voted upon by all of the Zone 2 sysops.

     The chairman of the meeting (me ;-) then explained that Ron and
     David Dodell (1:1/0, the IC) have had several netmail discussions
     in the recent past and that he considered it highly unlikely that
     David would appoint Ron Dwight as ZC2.

     (Note: Under current Policy the ZC is appointed by the IC,
     normally upon advice of the resigning ZC)

     It was noted that that an election for a new ZC2 would be contrary
     to Policy. It might even lead to the conclusion that Zone 2 would
     be segregating from Fidonet.

     The participants then expressed the feeling that they _do_ want to
     cooperate and coexist with the other Zones in Fidonet. However, it
     was unanimously voted that the new ZC2 should be elected at
     Eurocon III.

     Consequently an election was held.
     The question was: Do we want Ron Dwight as new ZC2?

     The results of the election was:
     90% voted "Yes", 7% voted "No" and 3% votes were invalid.

     After this election Ron Dwight was installed as new ZC2.
     The meeting asked him to contact David Dodell to explain that the
     Zone 2 sysops desire to cooperate with the other Zones in Fidonet
     and that desintegration of Fidonet is not the case.
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 16                  26 Jun 1989


     David Dodell should also be asked to confirm the results of the
     election and officially appoint Ron Dwight as new ZC2.

     (Note: This has now been confirmed and Ron is installed officially
     as ZC2)

     C) Cost and quality of echomail.
     -------------------------------

     Dieter Soltau (ZEC2) explained how echomail is financed in
     Germany. Every node pays a mandatory fee of ECU 4 per month to
     cover the cost of the backbone including a fully operational
     backup node.
     The backup node takes over from the backbone as soon as the system
     goes down (i.e. when Dieter leaves home for more than one day ;-).

     Joaquim Homrighausen (1:135/20) then talked about how TAP (Trans
     Atlantic Project) started in summer 1987 with only one or two
     Swedish conferences and through the time grew to a full echomail
     Zonegate currently exchanging over 45 conferences between Zone 1
     and Zone 2. The cost of TAP amounts to some ECU 15.000 against
     total (voluntary) contributions of some ECU 1.300.

     Both speakers agreed that the main problems of echomail
     distribution are caused by the political power implied and the
     lack of organisation. Especially the latter increases cost and
     decreases the willingness of sysops to participate in the
     financing of echomail distribution.

     Dieter was asked to make a start on issues like cost-control,
     mapping of conferences and exchange of information.

     However, Dieter noted that several REC's never replied to his
     requests but that he will continue to stimulate the cooperation of
     REC's and NEC's.

     The session was concluded with Dieter's announcement that he will
     try to develop an echolist system suitable for Zone 2.


     D) Opinion on IFNA, by Randy Bush (1:105/6).
     -------------------------------------------
     Title: Why IFNA failed, why "Othernets" failed,
            why Fidonet is succeeding.

     The original goal to establish IFNA was to save Ben Baker from Tax
     impact on donations received to support the Fidonet
     administration.

     Randy expressed that the goal has not been achieved as IFNA does
     not pay any of the cost of Fidonet administration, e.g. cost of
     IC, Nodelist and Fidonews distribution, Zonegates, etcetera.
     Apart from this, IFNA has not even met any of the secondary goals
     like helping to administer or promote Fidonet. They haven't even
     been able to publish financial reports or Board minutes.

     FidoNews 6-26                Page 17                  26 Jun 1989


     He concluded that IFNA has done nothing else for Fidonet but taken
     our time and money.

     Reasons for failure are numerous, like having too much attention
     for bylaws and procedures and not enough for the needs and
     services of the sysops, having too much attention for only 2%
     flamers, general secrecy on their work, no public appreciation for
     workers, etc.

     Though this caused a lot of sysops to ask for a nodenumber in
     "Othernets" only 5% of them actually left Fidonet (the percentage
     is based on listed phonenumbers).
     The flaming in "Othernets" is just as bad as in Fidonet and no new
     developments of ideas, technology or services have been
     established.

     Randy concluded that Fidonet is succeeding, maybe in spite of
     itself.
     This conclusion is based on the following observations in Fidonet:
     - Continuing growth of population,
     - Technical growth,
     - Establishment of reliable links to other networks like UUCP,
       ARPAnet and Internet,
     - Wider social coverage in echomail.

     He finalized his speech with a warning that there still are
     problems, such as the centralisation of powers, the growth of
     rules and regulations and the increasing cost to be a sysop.


     E) Proposed Fidonet Policy 4.06.
     -------------------------------
     There were a lot of comments against the proposal. I will try to
     summarize some of the main issues here:

     - No provisions are made for contradictions with local
     legislation.

     - NC's are appointed by the RC's. RC's are appointed by the ZC's.
     ZC's are then "selected" by the RC's. The IC is "selected" amongst
     and by the ZC's.
     There is no consistency in this appointment / "selection" system.
     Fidonet has always been a community carried by all sysops in the
     net. There is no need to change this to a top down structure.
     As a matter of fact, sysops are very well capable of electing or
     appointing the *C system.
     Voluntary cooperation and communication is what keeps the
     (amateur-) Fidonet going.
     It is preferred that the IC is not one of the ZC's.
     The first objective of a ZC should be to cover the interests of
     his own Zone whereas the IC's first objective is to safeguard
     Fidonet as a whole.

     - (par. 1.3.6)
     As already noted by Don Daniels at Eurocon II the situation in
     Zone 2 is very different from the situation in Zone 1.
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 18                  26 Jun 1989


     The commercial sector often supports Fidonet in Europe and it is
     perhaps inappropriate to be so harsh with them.

     - (par. 2.1.7)
     How long is it required to keep mail / echomail packets? How large
     may they become before the sysop has the right to delete them?

     - (par. 2.1.8)
     Using today's high speed modem technology the transfer of echomail
     during ZMH needn't be a problem. However, instead of prohibition
     it should be discouraged.

     - (par. 3.4)
     This is in direct contradiction with the previously stated
     "selection" of IC amongst ZC's.

     - (par. 3.7)
     This is not considered a right but a duty!

     - (chapter 4)
     The chapter enforces that the NC should also have node 0 in the
     net and that he should be the sysop of the (mail-) distributing
     system.
     However, coordinating a net is in itself not a technical function.
     The chapter should therefor be restated that the NC 'need' not
     perform the duties but he should ensure that the duties are
     performed.
     i.e. The NC does not have to be the Host and the Host does not
     have to be the NC. This is working very smoothly in many Zone 2
     nets at the present time.

     - The proposal disallows geographical overlapping networks mainly
     based on the cost structure enforced by telephone companies in
     Zone 1. Network boundaries are to be defined by "area's of
     convenient telephone calling".
     The cost structure in other Zones is very different from the
     situation in Zone 1.
     This would cause a total reorganisation of Zone 2 resulting in a
     huge increase of the number of networks.
     (Like in France; currently three networks with only four different
     phonenumbers in the total Region. Imagina what would happen in
     Region 28 with over 250 nodes and 50 phone area's)

     - The Policy will be voted upon by the *C structure.
     The is neither a precedent for this procedure nor is it defined by
     current Policy.
     As stated before, Fidonet has always been rules by a consensus of
     all sysops and this should not be changed.
     In our democratic society, everyone gets to vote.


     F) Foundation of European Fidonet Organisation; EFO.
     ---------------------------------------------------
     At Eurocon II the desire to form a European Fidonet Organisation
     was already expressed. An advisory committee was formed to
     investigate the possibilities for such an organisation and
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 19                  26 Jun 1989


     eventually to propose a concept.
     However, due to the distances and the amount of people invloved
     this attempt failed.

     The Eurocon III Organisation Committee asked Henk Wevers for
     advice on this matter and together we invited Bob Gonsalves,
     Chairman of the IFNA International Affairs Committee and a
     professional lawyer, to take over the job of investigation and to
     setup some discussion points for Eurocon III.

     He presided the EFO discussions held at Eurocon III.

     Conclusions of the first discusiion rounds were:

     - We want an independent, non commercial, non profit European
     Fidonet Organisation.

     - The goals of the organisation are:

     1) Ownership of the copyright on the Zone 2 Nodelist.
     The nodelist has previously been commercially abused.
     To protect sysops from future misuse there has to be a legal
     entity which holds the copyright on the Zone 2 nodelist, similar
     to the IFNA copyright on the world Fidonet nodelist.

     2) Coverage of cost involved for the ZC2 operations.
     Zone 2 wants a democratically elected ZC. Without financial
     support this may lead to prevent less wealthy but otherwise
     qualified sysop to candidate for the job.

     3) Representation of Zone 2 at other legal entities.
     If a sysop would repsent himself at e.g. the European Committee
     they would require legal statutes of the organisation he would
     represent.
     The representation includes especially the promotion of the (Zone
     2) Fidonet network with national and European governments, such as
     the European Committee, organisations like the CCITT, as well as
     the mass media and European (local) telephone companies.

     The board of the organisation should be internationally oriented
     while it should be formed bottom up by means of democratic
     election(s).

     The original thought was to set up a mandatory fee to be paid by
     each node but after some discussion the general feeling was that
     this may be considered too negative. It would seem as if a node
     should pay a fee to obtain (or keep!) it's nodenumber which is not
     the intention of the fee.
     It was therefor decided that the fee (being ECU 4 per node) should
     be paid by the net and the NC's should be free to organize the
     collection of the funds in an appropriate manner. The RC's would
     act as collecting points for their independent nodes.
     Administrative nodenumbers, such as RC, NC and HUB should not be
     included in the calculations.
     Final decision was to take the phonenumbers in the nodelist as the
     basis for the calculations.
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 20                  26 Jun 1989


     With the above requirements as a basis four people, being John
     Caulfeild, Louis van Geel, Bob Gonsalves and Esa Laitinen, sat
     together on Saturday evening to formulate the starting points for
     EFO.

     The next day they presented their "draft paper" and after some
     (however emotional ;-) discussions the paper was adjusted and all
     participants agreed upon the following document:

     <quote>
     Draft Paper on the European Fidonet Organisation

     There will be founded an international, independent, non-
     commercial, non-profit organisation in Europe of electronic mail
     system operators networking by electronic means to the public
     switched telephone system.

     The name of this organisation shall be decided upon later, but
     will, depending on the legal structure to be chosen, either be
     European Fidonet Association (EFA), or European Fidonet
     Organisation (EFO).

     The Board of Directors of this organisation will be elected or
     appointed in a democratic manner in that way, that the
     participants in Zone 2 of the worldwide Fidonet will elect a Board
     of Representatives, consisting of a representative chosen
     following the well established rules of democracy, per Region.

     The Board of Directors will consist of three members as a minimum
     and five members as a maximum. The officers will be elected or
     appointed for a period of two years, which means that every year
     the half less one or the half plus one of the officers will
     change.

     The members of the Board of Directors will elect between
     themselves a President, a Secretary and a Treasurer.

     Every year the financial records will be checked by an external
     auditor. His report on the verification of the records will be
     published.

     The secretary of the Board of Directors will keep minutes of the
     minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors which minutes
     will also be published.

     The Articles of Association or Foundation will be drafted under
     the law of the Kingdom of the Netherlands untill such time that an
     appropriate Code of European Law will be in existence.

     The main goal of the organisation will be the support of Zone 2 of
     the worldwide Fidonet.

     The sub-goals of the organisation will be the ownership of the
     copyright on the Zone 2 nodelist, the representation of the sysops
     in negotiations, the public relations functions especially with
     regard to the promotion of the Fidonet network with national and
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 21                  26 Jun 1989


     European governments as well as with the mass media and European
     PTT's, the financing of the expenses of the organisation and as
     far as possible financing the expenses of the Zone Coordinator of
     Zone 2 of Fidonet.

     The sysops attending the Eurocon III conference will appoint a
     Steering Committee of five members with a mandate to proceed with
     the drafting of the Articles of Association or Foundation and with
     the setting up of the elections for the Board of Representatives
     for the year 1990.

     The members of the Steering Committee will pay their personal
     expenses and the Dutch computer organisations PCC and HCC will be
     requested to assist in prefinancing the organisational expenses
     for the first year.

     There has to be paid by the nets in Zone 2 a mandatory fee of ECU
     4, on the basis of the number of nodes in the net, for each true
     entry in the nodelist.
     <end of quote>

     The following people have been appointed to the Steering
     Committee:
     John Caulfeild (2:256/27), Bob Gonsalves (*), Ulf Jungjohann
     (2:246/1), Esa Laitinen (2:515/801) and Sacha Vogt (2:310/5).
     (*) can be contacted via 2:500/10.

     The progress of their work will be continually published and
     discussed in ENET.SYSOP.

     Ron Dwight agreed to cooperate with the Steering Committee.

     The goal of the Steering Committee is to draft Articles of
     Association (or Foundation) with full consent of the sysops of
     Zone 2 which will be presented before Eurocon IV.
     At Eurocon IV these drafts will be finally approved.

     Ron Dwight adds the following:
     Some of the proposals for the formation and operation of EFA/EFO
     are somewhat contraversial. Before any organisation is created
     which will force the Fidonet Zone 2 sysop to pay a fee which may
     be repugent to them, a referendum will be initiated to decide if
     we should proceed or not. In other words, no fee will be charged
     to any sysop in Zone 2 before a European organisation has a
     mandate to do so from a clear majority of the sysops of Zone 2.

     == Epilogue ==
     --------------
     This is the end of the official report.
     However, I will now abuse the circumstances to write a few
     personal notes. If you mind this: STOP READING!

     First of all I wish to state that it was a very rewarding job to
     be a member of the Eurocon III Organisation Committee.
     Our prime goal was to organise a Zone 2 Fidonet Conference in
     which all interested Zone 2 sysops would participate.
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 22                  26 Jun 1989


     No more "Mainzcon" as opposition to "Eurocon".
     We have succeeded and I believe YOU, the Zone 2 sysops, are the
     true winners.
     YOU were the ones that proved we can be one united Zone 2 and that
     we all can live together in Zone 2, being members of a worldwide
     amateur network.

     Secondly, I wish to repeat the gratitude towards Henk Wevers.
     Not only on behalf of the participants present at Eurocon III but
     on behalf of the whole Zone 2.
     As a ZC you have been like a father to the community and led us
     through our adolescence. You have helped us to become a grown up
     Zone in Fidonet, now fully able to participate in and contribute
     to Fidonet.

     Last but least <grin> I wish a lot of strength and patience to Ron
     Dwight who has volunteered for the most unrewarding job in Zone 2
     and who has stuck his neck out with his ambitious mission.
     I have already seen the first flames fired at him, but remember:
     The flamers are only 2% and there are 98% silent supporters out
     there.
     I hope you succeed on your quest to make Zone 2 fully democratic.


     Credit where credit is due.
     --------------------------

     - Motel Eindhoven for making lunches and dinners a chaos.

     - Hans Ligthelm for the enormous work he performed with great
     enthousiasm in the organisation of Eurocon III.

     - Henk Wevers for the advice he gave to the organisation
     committee.

     - Randy Bush for being a true Zonegate in interfacing the needs
     and desires of all Zones at Eurocon III and for being a very
     involved participant at Eurocon III.

     - John Bone for the notes he made at Eurocon III,

     and especially

     - Vincent Veeger for the piles of notes he supplied me with and
     the great support he gave me in writing this report.

     Eurocon IV.
     ----------
     Ron Dwight has asked the Organisation Committee to assist in the
     decision where we should have Eurocon IV.
     If there are people willing and able to organise Eurocon IV then
     please send netmail to 2:512/1 before September 30, 1989.
     Include arrangements you can make for the conference, travel, room
     accomodation, etc.


     FidoNews 6-26                Page 23                  26 Jun 1989


     Peter Janssens, 2:512/1,
     Secretary of the Eurocon III Organisation Committee.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 24                  26 Jun 1989


     Steve Bonine
     115/777

                       FidoNet Policy -- Why Bother?


     I have recently had two distressing experiences.  One of them
     involves the removal of a single system from the nodelist, and
     the other involves the self-destruction of an entire local net.
     Both of these cases are symptoms of a malady which seems to be
     invading FidoNet -- a disease which has the potential to destroy
     everything we have built over the years.

     This sickness is a "take it or leave it" attitude regarding
     FidoNet Policy.  When you accept, or continue to accept, a
     listing in the FidoNet nodelist, you bind yourself to FidoNet's
     policy.  A listing in the nodelist is not a privilege.  It is a
     right that you earn by meeting the minimum requirements of
     policy:  ZMH and not being excessively annoying.

     I observed a message in the national sysop echo from Jim Grubs,
     in which he stated that he was not bound by Policy4 because he
     did not vote for it.  This is a classic non sequitur.  I am
     sympathetic with Jim's desire for more democracy in FidoNet, but
     refusing to abide by FidoNet's policy is not acceptable.  I sent
     netmail to Jim, asking him to reconsider.  He refused, so I had
     no choice but to remove his listing from the nodelist.

     The other situation, which has been described at length in Fido-
     News, involves net 154 in Milwaukee.  When I sent netmail to Ted
     Polczynski, the NC of net 154, asking that he place three systems
     in the correct geographic net, the response I received was much
     the same as that from Mr. Grubs.  Ted insists that he has the
     right to list any systems in net 154, without regard to the
     systems' geographic location.  Ted feels that this is in the best
     interests of FidoNet.  Unfortunately, this is contrary to current
     policy, which specifically states that an NC cannot assign a node
     to a system in an area which is covered by another net.  Just
     like Jim, Ted has repeatedly refused to make the simple statement
     that he will be bound by current policy.  However, in Ted's case,
     an entire net suffers.

     It would be much easier for me, in both of these cases, to simply
     turn my back and ignore the situation.  After all, this is a
     hobby.  Let's all just chill out and go with the flow.

     Does my failure to enforce policy help FidoNet?  No.  If we are
     going to have a policy, it must be enforced.  It must be enforced
     consistently.  It is my responsibility to enforce the policy.  My
     choices are to enforce policy or to not be a part of the enforce-
     ment structure; selective enforcement is not an option.

     Without policy, what is left?  I do not relish the idea of
     FidoNet being reduced to nothing more than a list of bulletin
     board systems, which is what the nodelist becomes if policy is
     abandoned.
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 25                  26 Jun 1989


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 26                  26 Jun 1989


     Stephen Maley
     1:261/1014

                        A View From The Outside?


             I would  like  to  give  all of you my view on what I see
     when I look at all of the networks.

             To give you  a  little  background on myself, I have been
     working  in  computerized  communications  for  10  years.    The
     technology that  I  work  with  on  a  daily basis varies from 75
     baud(scary isn't it)  to 90 Megabit fiber links in many different
     configurations.  So, as  you  can  see, I bring to this subject a
     background in a wide variety of communications technologies.

             When I first joined my  local  network  almost  two years
     ago, I was impressed with the  possibilities  of  the  technology
     that makes the networks possible.  The  economy and efficiency of
     the network as viewed from a technology standpoint  were  some of
     the  things  that  impressed me.  The cooperation and  assistance
     from  my Net Coordinator and a fellow Sysop gave me  the  insight
     needed  to join the network smoothly and without causing too many
     problems for  others  in  the  net  which  made  my  introduction
     painless.

             My first active  move  was to read Policy 3.  It gave the
     glowing impression of  a  large number of sysops working together
     to  promote communications between  themselves  and  between  the
     users  of  their systems.   That  the  rules  of  the  road  were
     cooperation and curtesy to all.   I  felt  that  these rules were
     awfully lax for such a large organization  but,  they  apparently
     worked or the network would have suffered severe  disruptions  of
     service that would have prevented it from growing as it has.

             Well, over the last two years, after reading the echos of
     the  controlling  organizations for the network and thousands  of
     messages in various echo forums, many of which should  have  gone
     into  the  bit bucket.  After seeing splits and fights  and  name
     calling and unrestricted changes in software.  I do not feel that
     the networks will survive too much longer at this pace.

             I guess  that  the  strongest  emotion  that  I  feel  is
     disappointment.   The majority do  not  seem  to  understand  the
     necessity of standards and controls to  keep networks as large as
     these functioning.

             A hobby, yes, it is.  But, it is based on technology that
     requires  the successful interaction of  thousands  of  computers
     operated by thousands of sysops scattered  all  over  the  world.
     The need for controls, standards, managing bodies  and  technical
     standards committees can not be ignored.

             In order to promote the survival of this  form of network
     communication and to reduce many of  the difficulties that all of
     the networks are operating under, everyone needs  to  spend  less
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 27                  26 Jun 1989


     time trying to tear down the controls that are in place and spend
     more time in trying to help those in positions  of  authority  to
     make  knowledgeable  decisions    for  the  continued  successful
     operation of all of the networks.

             From a technology standpoint, it would be relatively easy
     to remove 90% of the problems, but, from a political stand point,
     it  may  be  impossible to correct any of them.    The  political
     situation is of your own making, so you are the only ones who can
     correct it.

             If you feel that you have the knowledge and experience to
     improve the operation  of a network, use it for the betterment of
     all of the networks.

             If you are opposed to a technological standard or network
     management policy, prepare a document that details the problem as
     you see it.  What the impact on the operation  of the network is.
     Then  provide  a  detailed description of what you think a viable
     solution  to  the  problem  is.    Send  the document to your Net
     Coordinator and discuss it with him or her.  After discussing and
     refining it with  your  net coordinator, send it to your Regional
     Coordinator and work with  him or her.  Use the structure that is
     in place.  It may  not  be exactly to your liking and you may not
     like all of the persons in it, but you will be able to do more to
     improve  the network by working with the  structure  that  is  in
     place than by trying to destroy it.

             There  are many talented people in all of  the  networks.
     Many  of  them  are constantly working to improve the  technology
     that  makes  these networks function.  To those of you  who  have
     developed  new   techniques,  do  not  forget  that  your  simple
     improvement, introduced without proper checks and balances, could
     render the network un-usable  and  that  trying  to  force change
     without proper controls not only reduces the effectiveness of the
     advancement that you have made, but  greatly  reduces the overall
     operational effectiveness of the network.

             One  day,  I  hope  to  be  able  to  log-on  to  my  net
     coordinators system and read national sysop or  one  of the other
     echos that is supposed to be a forum for effective communications
     between all of us that make up the networks, and not have to stop
     reading  after  the  third message because of the frustration and
     disappointment  that I feel.  Look at how everyone is acting  and
     think  about  how  it  looks  from  the  outside.    What  is the
     impression given when viewed by an interested public or corporate
     organization.

             In my opinion,  from a network management and engineering
     standpoint, all of the networks combined are primed for a massive
     disruption of services if  the  individuals  involved down to the
     Sysop level do not start pulling together.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 28                  26 Jun 1989


                            Fredric L. Rice
                         Astro Net 1:103/503.3

     There are  some FidoNet  SysOps on  Earth who  acquire a warm
     glowing  feeling  by  blowing friends  and  users into highly
     radioactive gas and then  gloating about it to any  survivors
     there may be.

     To be fair, many users have  treated their SysOps in kind but
     such  actions  on  the part  of the  user  has  never,  to my
     knowledge, led to the removal of the user in real life.

     I speak, of course, of Universal Mayhem in FidoNet.

     There are a little over seventy Universal Mayhem nodes around
     the world running Mayhem as an Outside or Doors program; many
     in Australia, Europe, Canada, and the States, as well as some
     in India, China, and God knows where.

     Several FidoNews articles have been posted about its progress
     and bug  removals and  most of  them have  been  "published",
     (some were simply too long  so they were  E-Mailed out to all
     known Mayhem  nodes). If  you haven' t seen  any of  these, I
     offer a short description:

     Universal Mayhem is a space  shoot-em-up game  that allows up
     to 250 users on your system  to build and command  a ship and
     base.   By  performing  interstellar  commerce,  you  acquire
     capital with which to  take  over  the  universe.  There  are
     obstacles, of course, such  as the other players, but you can
     always  be assured that  with some well  placed alliance, you
     have a chance to be the universes' Adolf.  If you find things
     are not going well and  you have fought for and  acquired all
     parts of the Slaver Death  Weapon, you can  always trigger it
     and win the whole puppy, (think before you pull the trigger).

     The project  was started over two years  ago when FidoNet was
     just  starting  to come apart.  The political  atmosphere was
     just starting  and the  Alternate people were  thinking about
     making the break.  I had been with FidoNet  in the background
     as a humble and invisible  user for a few years and thought I
     would try to  make a  program which would offer  an avenue of
     escape for  SysOps and provide  an arena  in which they might
     let off steam.

     After a year of development, it went to Alpha testing here in
     California for  six  months  and was  greeted with  thirty or
     forty regulars. After that  time,  general  distribution took
     place in  the form of  Version 1.00 and I am  now  at Version
     1.3, (which will be  mailed around the  17'th of June  to all
     known Mayhem sites; there is mail coming in all the time from
     nodes that I don't have on my distribution list but have been
     running for a few months).

     Has the  project worked?  Is the  objective  of  providing  a
     method  of  symbolic  SysOp  extermination  realized?  No, it
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 29                  26 Jun 1989


     hasn't.  The reason is mainly  because of  the  bugs  in  the
     original software which cause  SysOps to remove it, the other
     was due to the early versions disk space usage. Both of these
     problems  have been solved, with  disk space usage dropped to
     some 40 percent of what  it was initially.  Though the number
     of active Mayhem nodes  have increased over the last year, it
     still isn't as widely dispersed as I would like.

     Mayhem  has  always  been  distributed  freely  and supported
     totally. It's a good thing I use the company phone lines or I
     would  have had  my phone  pulled by the  central office long
     ago.  When new versions  of  Mayhem are  released,  they  are
     mailed directly from  my California node to all  known Mayhem
     nodes. The non-backbone echo AREA:MAYHEM is  also distributed
     by my node in a mode where all  known nodes  are polled every
     other night.

     It's the Mayhem echo that was to provide the method of inter-
     node  communication  between  Mayhem sites.  When you  send a
     subspace message in Mayhem, it builds a FidoNet  message file
     in your echo mail area. I usually see insults and promises of
     revenge and other nicely evil comments. These get sent to all
     other nodes in the echo conference automatically.

     There are some things I am looking for and need:

     o If you would like to get  Universal Mayhem  and  be  on  my
     distribution  list,  please  contact  me  through  Astro  Net
     103/503  in  California  at  (714)  662-2294.   I  will  mail
     MAYHEM13.EXE  which  is a  self-extracting archive containing
     everything  needed  including  a massive  mind-boggling +200K
     document file. If you just want the  document to look it over
     before deciding you want me  to mail the whole  thing, let me
     know.

     o If you would like to get in the MAYHEM echo, let me know so
     I can add you to my list. I will poll every other day. If you
     have questions or problems  with  Mayhem,  I  can  call  your
     system and acquire  access through my author back door to fix
     it.

     o I need a product  review to be  written  by  a  Mayhem Node
     SysOp  or one  of its  users  for  submission  in FidoNews. I
     realize that normally  product reviews are  of a more serious
     network-related product. Since we  need only one, if you want
     the  assignment, please let me know  so I can get back to you
     to see if you know of the amount of work involved!

     o It seems as though I will be working the month of August so
     I will not be able  to make it to  the convention in  the San
     Jose area. If there  are any  exiting Mayhem  Nodes going and
     would like to hand out  a couple hundred copies  of Universal
     Mayhem for  me, let me  know and I will  mail you a box  of a
     hundred or so. Let me know what days you plan to be attending
     so I can mail  more than one  box to several  SysOps to cover
     all days.  Just hand  them out  to any  SysOp you  might  see
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 30                  26 Jun 1989


     stumbling down the sidewalk with a taco in hand. <???>

     Fredric Rice
     1:103/503.3
     (714) 662-2294


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 31                  26 Jun 1989


              Stepping Lightly through the Hornet's Nest
               or: Comments and Replies to FidoNews 6-25
                           by Daniel Tobias
                                1:380/7

     My FidoNews article on the European situation has brought
     rise to a storm of controversy in FidoNews 6-25.  Some of
     those who I have managed to offend actually appear to be
     philosophically on much the same wavelength as myself, so I
     am attempting to make replies in a conciliatory tone rather
     than escalating a battle of words.  If some of my opinions
     still disagree with your own, please consider this to be a
     friendly disagreement rather than an acrimonious dispute; I
     honestly have no big axe to grind or power-trip to ride, and
     I don't attribute malice to the actions of anyone else, even
     those with whom I may disagree from time to time.  Let's
     keep this hobby FUN, more than anything else!

     Also, please note that the opinions I express are solely my
     own, and are not by any means intended to be regarded as
     anything else.  In particular, European sysops should not
     jump to any conclusion to the effect that I am speaking for
     North America in general, just because I happen to live
     here.  It could be that 98% of American sysops disagree with
     me; I didn't take a vote before I expressed my opinion.

     With all that stated, let me proceed to comment on
     everything in FidoNews 6-25 that I feel needs commenting on
     (including those pieces addressed specifically to me, as
     well as other items in this issue).


     TO Vince Perriello RE Editorial:

     It isn't necessary to expand the Current Versions page to
     cover EVERY utility that any FidoNet sysop is using, but I'm
     not sure, on the other hand, that you're justified in
     excluding ALL non-SEA archivers.  That might be construed as
     favortism, regardless of whatever the true motive may be.  I
     think several other archivers (PKZIP and ZOO, for example)
     are in sufficiently-wide use to justify inclusion.  The
     criterion should be the wideness of use within the network
     as a whole; perhaps you should do a survey.


     TO John Burden RE A European Response:

     I apologize for depressing you.  Actually, I agree fully
     with your concerns.  However, you're laboring under some
     misconceptions:  for instance, you use "IFNA" constantly in
     a context that implies that it is the governing body of
     FidoNet, while it is my impression from viewing recent
     pronouncements of the BoD, as well as the thoroughly
     IFNAless means that POLICY4 was enacted, that IFNA has
     decided to divorce itself completely from a policymaking or
     administrative role in FidoNet at any level.  IFNA is now
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 32                  26 Jun 1989


     regarding itself solely as a service organization aiding the
     "greater FidoNet" consisting of all Fido-compatible nodes
     regardless of net affiliation.  They support FTSC, FidoCons,
     and projects regarding use of BBSs by the handicapped, among
     other things.  IFNA's copyright notice still appears on the
     nodelist and FidoNews, but they apparently have no intention
     on actually regulating the network; this copyright situation
     exists because FidoNet itself is not a legal entity capable
     of registering a copyright.

     Your statement that only 152 out of the thousands of nodes
     voted for POLICY4 is misleading as a measure of apathy,
     given that only *C's were allowed to vote at all.

     I don't view Zone 2 as a "colony" of Zone 1, or vice versa;
     rather, they are both sub-parts of the global FidoNet which
     should be viewed as equally important (and the same is true
     of zones 3 and 4).  All of these zones must bear some
     expense to carry the other portions of the nodelist;
     admittedly, this is not very equal given the larger size of
     the Zone 1 portion, but that doesn't mean that the cost to
     Zone 1 of carrying the other zones is nonexistent.  My point
     is that the zones are all part of a whole, and hence are not
     thoroughly autonomous, however much all (including myself)
     might want local autonomy at the various levels.  To give
     one example, no net, region, or zone can unilaterally change
     the format of its nodelist segment to something that is
     incompatible with that of the others, without global
     agreement.

     Since you mention dissent within Europe over the proposed
     "node tax," that confirms my statement that such a thing is
     controversial, and should probably be given a vigorous
     debate before it is imposed anywhere.  I must note that I
     DID NOT come out against this idea; I only stated, then and
     now, that it is controversial and needs careful examination,
     NOT that it should definitely be squelched.  Right now,
     POLICY4 states that zone and local policies may not impose
     requirements on sysops other than additional mail hours, so
     amendment would be required to permit mandatory fees at any
     level.  (This is a statement of fact with regard to current
     policy, NOT a statement that I feel FidoNet SHOULD proscribe
     [or prescribe] mandatory fees worldwide; I haven't made up
     my mind on the latter position.)


     TO Ron Dwight RE The European Situation, an informed
     perspective:

     See my comments to John Burden above.

     Please note that my name is spelled with an "e", not an "a".
     You got it right the first time, but somehow messed up in
     later references.

     I must also note that my comments were based on a FidoNews
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 33                  26 Jun 1989


     article regarding European policy, not on the policy itself.
     I have not seen the European policy, either POLICY-4E or any
     new proposal, since I do not know where these documents may
     be obtained in Zone 1.  If you wish, you may send me these
     documents so that I too may give "an informed perspective"
     on them.

     I apologize if any of my comments were based on an improper
     reading of the situation based on incomplete information.
     The tone of the earlier FidoNews article implied that Zone 2
     had made POLICY-4E supercede both POLICY3 and POLICY4, had
     unilaterally rejected POLICY4 for their territory, and were
     in the process of imposing a "head tax" on their nodes
     despite a prohibition of such a thing in POLICY4; if I'm
     mistaken, I sincerely apologize.

     As you state, POLICY4 was placed up for the acceptance or
     rejection by the entire *C structure.  It passed, despite
     the negative votes of many Zone 2 coordinators.  Hence, it
     is now in effect throughout FidoNet.  (This is a statement
     of fact, not meant to imply agreement on my part with the
     content of this policy document; as my other FidoNews
     articles have shown, I have many disagreements which I wish
     to address in a POLICY5 proposal.)

     Later in your piece, you make the puzzling juxtaposition of
     stating first that a mandatory fee has never been in effect
     in Europe, and will not be placed into effect by your new
     proposed policy; but at the same time you state that the
     assembled sysops at EuroCon decided that such a fee should
     be imposed, and you feel that such a thing is an important
     positive step.  So which is it?  Is a European node fee in
     the offing, or isn't it?  (Please note, as I stated in my
     comments to John Burden, that I am NOT at this time
     supporting or opposing the idea of a mandatory fee, only
     pointing out its controversial nature and its contravention
     of current policy.)

     I did not "spread rumors" regarding this node fee; I simply
     responded to an earlier article on this subject (in FidoNews
     6-22).

     Thanks for "basically agree"ing with my conclusion; if what
     you want is a minimal POLICYx document giving major autonomy
     to the component parts, go ahead and draft such a document;
     I might even support it.  My point is ONLY that all zones of
     FidoNet must, by definition, operate in accordance with the
     POLICYx document presently in effect; that's all that
     distinguishes a FidoNet subportion from one of AlterNet,
     EggNet, or AnyOtherNet.  This doesn't imply any specific
     view regarding what POLICYx OUGHT TO say.

     One closing comment regarding local autonomy vs. central
     control:  While on the whole, I feel that preservation of
     individual liberty is best served by decentralization, this
     is not inevitably true in all situations.  Local authorities
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 34                  26 Jun 1989


     can sometimes be as authoritarian as any central authority,
     with the major difference being that it's usually easier to
     escape the domain of a local tyrant than a global one.
     However, with the geographical exclusivicity enforced rather
     strictly by POLICY4 (e.g., a node can't join a network
     outside his geographical region without permission of both
     RCs involved), the possibility exists for some local
     subsections of FidoNet to become tyrannies if granted
     absolute autonomy.  Perhaps the solution to this would be to
     couple complete local autonomy with the complete abolition
     of geographical exclusivicity; e.g., allow any NC, RC, or ZC
     to admit any node he chooses, regardless of place of
     residence.  This would allow nodes to link into the network
     in alternative manners to get around local leaders whom they
     find disagreeable (or local fees and other requirements
     they find burdensome), without requiring global action to be
     taken against the offending coordinators.  This would allow
     for maximal individual liberty, at the cost of a bit of
     anarchy which is likely to displease those who wish rigid
     order for the entire network.

     (Note that some of the proposals I've been kicking around in
     this and other articles could appear to contradict one
     another; this is because I AM in fact just "kicking around"
     these ideas in the hope of hashing out an ideal structure
     for the future of FidoNet.  I have not solidified my
     opinion; I'm open to all ideas.)


     TO Les Kooyman RE FidoCon '89 Update: Dateline Silicon
     Valley:

     I tried sending in my reservation for FidoCon a few weeks
     ago, and it was returned by the Post Office stamped
     "Attempted: Not Known."  I checked the address; I got the PO
     Box and Zip Code correct, so I don't know why it was
     undeliverable.  Maybe the P.O. didn't recognize "FidoCon
     '89" in the address instead of the full title "Silicon
     Valley FidoCon '89".  I'll try to send it again using the
     full name, and cross my fingers it gets delivered.

     I have sent a message to node 1/89 about this, and have yet
     to receive a reply as of this writing (6/20/89).


     TO Daniel Tobias RE Some More Comments:

     Oops... that's me.  I'm getting so carried away doing this
     reply thing that I was just about to start picking an
     argument with myself.


     TO Jack Decker RE Thoughts on the Nodelist:

     Interesting idea.  However, how will you deal with duplicate
     net numbers?  Also, the use of your nodelist for echomail
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 35                  26 Jun 1989


     could result in confusing SEEN-BY lines when the messages
     are exported to systems on the VariousNets which are not
     participants in your Public Nodelist.


     TO Randy Bush RE An April Fool joke that wasn't:

     Well, I guess FidoNet isn't the only network having internal
     political conflicts.


     TO Stuart Henderson RE UK-Modem.Art:

     That UK bill has some very scary features, such as the
     confiscation of anything construed by the government to be
     related to computer crime (much like some of the "Zero
     Tolerance" and RICO measures being taken in this country
     with regard to drug offenders and sometimes pornographers).
     However, I don't see any outright ban on BBSs in that law,
     unless I read it incorrectly (my grasp of the British legal
     system isn't very great).  The intent is to ban
     "unauthorized access" to computer systems, not to ban the
     setting up of computer systems for legal purpose.  Which
     clause do you see as banning BBSs which do not engage in
     illegal "hacking" or "phreaking"?


     TO Tom Jennings RE European Autonomy and Domestic Meddlers:

     Though I'm not explicitly named, I presume your article is
     intended as a response to mine.

     I sincerely apologize if I have in any way offended you;
     since you're the founder of FidoNet, I value your opinion
     highly.

     I never said that Zone 1 should be the "police force of the
     world"; I simply stated what was (to me) a self-evident fact
     that FidoNet (ALL zones) was a network defined by its
     adherence to whatever POLICYx document is currently in
     effect.  This is true regardless of whether POLICYx attempts
     to impose all-encompassing control of every aspect of every
     node's operations, or says nothing at all except that each
     zone is completely autonomous.  I expressed no opinion there
     in favor of one or the other state of affairs, or anything
     in between (though I have since made a number of more
     specific statements as regards these areas).

     Despite your (and my) wish that this be a "bottom-up network
     where sysops choose their net hosts and other /O's", you
     apparently failed to make this sufficiently clear at the
     outset, or else POLICYx-making authority was somehow
     wrenched out of your hands and taken over by people of
     different philosophy.  At any rate, to the best of my
     knowledge (going back to when I first became interested in
     FidoNet in 1985), the POLICYx document has always prescribed
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 36                  26 Jun 1989


     a top-down structure completely lacking in democracy.
     Hence, my advocacy of policy change, far from being an
     unsavory move from a bottom-up status quo towards a
     centralist, top-down structure, is in actuality a call for a
     change from a top-down status quo to a bottom-up structure
     which probably agrees with what you want.

     Hence, we most likely have no reason to disagree at all, and
     I would be most pleased to see your proposal regarding what
     wording POLICY5 ought to have to bring about the structure
     you would have liked to see FidoNet have from the start.

     (I note that your 1985-era statement of FidoNet policy is in
     the following FidoNews article; it is, as your views imply,
     a non-authoritarian document with local nets being formed
     spontaneously without top-down approval required, and no
     such thing as "regions" to add entangling geographical
     rules.  However, by the time the rules became codified in
     POLICY1, there was a fundamental change in the ordering
     principle, probably not your doing; this created the
     precedent for top-down control that has been followed ever
     since.  Perhaps you can shed some historical light on this.)

     I see you'll be a speaker at the FidoCon; I'm planning on
     attending, so I hope we can meet and discuss FidoNet history
     and policy in a friendly manner.


     * Whew * This article turned out to be much longer than I
     expected.  I hope I haven't bored anyone to death, and I
     further hope that I have cleared up any misunderstandings my
     earlier article may have caused, and haven't made any
     enemies within what really ought to be a FRIENDLY network.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 37                  26 Jun 1989


     Jack Decker
     Fidonet 1:154/8 (but maybe not for long, if our RC has his way)
     LCRnet 77:1011/8

                     PROPOSAL FOR A PUBLIC NODELIST

     Last week, in my Fidonews article entitled "Thoughts on the
     Nodelist", I proposed that there be a "public" nodelist in
     which all Fidonet-compatible nodes could be listed.  As I
     explained, the Fidonet nodelist is not a public nodelist, but
     rather a private nodelist of Fidonet members.  In a situation
     that is somewhat analogous to the chicken and the egg, I'm not
     sure whether being in the nodelist makes you a member of
     Fidonet, or being in Fidonet gives you the right to be in the
     nodelist, but one way or the other, your nodelist listing and
     your membership in Fidonet are inextricably linked.  Should you
     fall from the graces of Fidonet (and more and more Sysops are
     finding themselves in this situation), you will lose your
     nodelist listing.

     This week I would like to present a somewhat more concrete
     proposal for a "public" nodelist.  I will call this nodelist
     "The Official Public Computer Network Nodelist" for now
     (although, as with anything here, I'm open to suggestions for a
     better way of doing things), and offer some thoughts on what
     this nodelist should be, and how it should be implemented:

     1)  The "prime directive" would be that this list is NOT to be
     used for disciplinary or political purposes.  A node is
     presumed to have the right to be listed in the list (with the
     approval of their Net Coordinator), unless proven otherwise.

     2)  There will be NO CHARGE for being listed in this nodelist,
     nor for receiving nodelist updates (except for any telephone
     toll charges you may incur in polling for this nodelist).  This
     might be considered "prime directive #2".

     3)  A "Nodelist Distribution Network" will be used to
     distribute these nodelists.  These will simply be people who
     agree to poll once a week to get the nodediffs, and then make
     them available for file request on their systems, or at their
     option, deliver them to other Nets or nodes.  The NDN members
     may also assist with the collection and/or processing of
     nodelist segments from individual nets.

     4)  The minimum standard for being listed in this nodelist is
     that a node be able to complete a minimum Fidonet Standards
     Committee FSC-0001 mail session with other nodes during the
     appropriate mail handling period (which initially will be the
     same as the Fidonet Zone Mail Hour).  If it is discovered that
     a particular type of software is incapable of completing such a
     mail session, we reserve the right to place nodes utilizing
     that software on "hold", or to drop them from the nodelist,
     until the problem is resolved.  This is a purely technical
     standard, and may not be "selectively enforced" as a roundabout
     way of using this nodelist for political purposes.  In the
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 38                  26 Jun 1989


     future, we may permit the use of nodelist flags to indicate a
     variance from the minimum standard, or we may modify the
     standard (these items are open for discussion).  Private,
     unlisted nodes are specifically exempted from this requirement,
     since it is assumed that their Net Coordinator will know when
     and how to pass mail to them (making it in effect a private
     matter, HOWEVER, a Net Coordinator MAY enforce this requirement
     against unlisted nodes in his network if there is good reason
     to do so).

     5)  The purpose of the list would be to provide a common
     "directory" for NETS, and for the nodes in those nets.  This
     statement has several implications:

     a)  One does not get dropped from a directory for bad
     behaviour.  There are other ways of dealing with "rogue" nodes,
     such as using a password to prevent them from connecting with
     your system.

     b)  The only people who may request that a node be removed from
     the list are the operator of the node itself, and the Net
     Coordinator for the net.  If the Net Coordinator makes the
     request, the node is perfectly free to be listed under another
     Net, if the Coordinator of that Net will agree to take on that
     node (one NC's "rotten apple" may be another NC's "star
     Sysop").

     c)  Because the purpose of the list is to list NETS, no REGION
     listings will be permitted (yes, that could be construed as a
     political statement, but it's about as political as we intend
     to get).  ZONE listings (now used in current nodelists) and
     POINT listings (now NOT used in current nodelists) are open to
     discussion (if we do allow points to be listed, we may still
     make available nodelists with points omitted, for those using
     software that can't process the point listings and/or those who
     have limited disk space).

     d)  Our intent is that no independent regional nodes be listed,
     however, if we can be shown a persuasive reason to allow
     independent nodes, we may consider allowing them in a specific
     portion of the nodelist (except that if we use ZONES, they
     would be listed under the proper ZONE).

     e)  A "Net" is defined as a group of three or more nodes, NOT
     including private, unlisted nodes.  Nodes with the same
     telephone number count as only one node.  A net that drops
     below the three node figure will have 60 days to make
     arrangements to become part of another net (or to increase
     their node count).  We reserve the right to make exceptions to
     the minimum node count rule where unusual conditions exist.
     Note that we are deliberately not using any geographical
     considerations in our definition of a "Net".

     6)  There will be NO GEOGRAPHIC RESTRICTIONS on nets.  A net
     may accept and list nodes located anywhere!  While in most
     cases it will make sense for nets to be formed based on
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 39                  26 Jun 1989


     geographic, calling area, or cost considerations, this is NOT
     required.  Our intent is to accept nodelist fragments from Net
     Coordinators and process them as received, without getting
     involved in passing judgement on whether listed nodes should or
     should not be in that net.

     7)  If two (or more) different people claim to be Net
     Coordinator for a given net, and both send us nodelist
     fragments for that net, we will continue to use the fragments
     provided by the previous NC (that is, the person who has
     previously been sending us the nodelist fragments for that net)
     unless and until it can be proven to our satisfaction that the
     NC position has been transferred in a valid manner.  However,
     we cannot and will not be held liable for an incorrect decision
     in this regard.  If all else fails, we reserve the right to
     conduct an independent poll of the members of that net, to
     determine the majority choice of NC, but we are not REQUIRED to
     take this action, and generally will not do so except in the
     most extreme circumstances.

     8)  We will generally try to allow the use of all nodelist
     flags currently used in other nets' nodelists, except where a
     usage conflict exists between two nets, and then we will make a
     determination as to which flags are allowed.  We may also add
     some additional approved flags from time to time.  Generally we
     will try not to restrict the use of nodelist flags
     unnecessarily, unless the proliferation of nodelist flags
     becomes a serious problem (even the phone company will
     sometimes restrict the length and specificity of address that
     you can put in the phone book!).

     9)  By sending a network's nodelist fragment to us, the Network
     Coordinator or person sending the fragment certifies that  a)
     the nodelist fragment is in the Public Domain, OR  b) any
     copyright claimed on the nodelist fragment is held by the Net
     sending the nodelist fragment, and that we are granted
     permission to use this nodelist fragment.

     10)  For a limited time (through 9/30/89) we will reserve
     current Fidonet Net numbers so that any current Fidonet net can
     be listed under the same net number that they use in Fidonet.
     After that date, net numbers will be assigned on a first come,
     first served basis.  Please note that current Fidonet nets do
     NOT have to be listed under the same net number that they use
     in Fidonet, nor does their configuration or Net Coordinator
     need to be the same as is used in Fidonet (for example, they
     may wish to add additional nodes that would not be acceptable
     for geographic or other reasons under Fidonet policy).  But,
     prior to 9/30/89, we will only accept applications for Net
     numbers currently in use in Fidonet from the Net Coordinators
     of those Fidonet networks.

     If, prior to the 9/30/89 cutoff date, a Fidonet Net Coordinator
     indicates in some way that he does NOT wish to be listed in
     this nodelist, but a number of nodes within his net DO wish to
     be included, we will consider listing those nodes and allowing
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 40                  26 Jun 1989


     one of those nodes to be placed in the nnn/0 position for the
     purposes of this nodelist.  Any node so placed in the nnn/0
     position must be willing to forward any inbound routed netmail
     to others in his net that are also listed in this nodelist (not
     necessarily at his expense, however).

     Please note that this reserving of Fidonet node numbers is
     offered only as a courtesy to existing Fidonet networks, so
     that they can be included in both nodelists with a minimum of
     confusion among their nodes (that is, without the need for
     nodes to have "dual identities").  However, Fidonet and the
     Official Public Computer Network Nodelist are not to be thought
     of as being in any way connected.  If a net chooses to be
     listed in both the Fidonet nodelist and the Official Public
     Computer Network Nodelist, this should be thought of in a
     manner somewhat analogous to two separate organizations that
     just happen to have the same individuals in the same positions
     on the board of directors.  Legally, the organizations are
     still separate and totally unrelated.

     Where possible, we will also try to list Nets that are part of
     other (non-Fidonet) networks under their existing Net numbers,
     except where such net numbers are already used by existing
     Fidonet Nets.  However, since we do not know the net numbers
     currently in use by non-Fidonet nets, we would encourage those
     who think that they may wish to be included in this nodelist to
     at least let us know what their existing net number is, so that
     we will not prematurely assign it to another network.  Where
     conflicts occur among existing non-Fidonet net numbers, we will
     assign them on a first-come, first-served basis.

     With the exception of Net numbers that are already in use by
     other nets, we do not intend to assign Net numbers under 100
     except in special situations.

     11)  At this point in time, we feel that IF Zones are utilized,
     they should be used only for the original purpose of sending
     mail between widely separated and distinct geographic areas
     (e.g. continents).  Therefore, if Zones are used, we will
     usually place Nets as follows: all North American Nets will be
     listed under Zone 1, all European Nets under Zone 2, all Asian,
     Australian, and Pacific Rim Nets under Zone 3, and all South
     American Nets under Zone 4.  These territories may be modified
     from time to time as conditions warrant.  If a Net Coordinator
     wishes to be listed under a different Zone, and can make the
     necessary arrangements to receive any netmail from that Zone's
     Zonegate(s) (if one exists, and at no cost to the Zonegate
     operator), we will permit it (although we don't encourage it!).
     Also, individual nodes within a net may be located ANYWHERE, so
     long as the Net Coordinator will take them, since it is assumed
     that any netmail destined for those nodes can be host routed.
     Sysops that do not wish to place international calls should be
     careful to make sure that their systems are programmed to
     disallow such calls based on telephone number (e.g. something
     other than "1" as the first digit in North America) and/or cost
     of the call, rather than relying on the fact that all nodes in
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 41                  26 Jun 1989


     a given Zone will be located in a particular geographic area
     (we feel that most systems are configured in this manner
     already).

     Again, we don't encourage Nets to be listed in a different Zone
     than the one in which they normally should be in.  The only
     reason we propose to allow it is so that Nets located in border
     areas (e.g. Central America) could choose the Zone that is most
     economical for them to affiliate with, OR so that Nets that can
     be best serviced from another Zone via private circuits,
     telephone tie-lines, etc. can be listed in the Zone from which
     they receive their NetMail and Echomail.  Because your Net will
     not be deleted from the nodelist for political or disciplinary
     reasons, you should not need to be listed in another Zone for
     these reasons.  Please try to exercise good judgement before
     requesting to be placed in another zone, or consider having the
     Net Coordinator (only) dual-listed in both Zones.

     12)  IF Zones are utilized, and IF someone wishes to be listed
     as a Zonegate in this nodelist, they must agree to forward mail
     to all systems listed in this nodelist that are geographically
     located within their Zone.  They are not required to forward
     mail to Nets that are geographically located in another Zone
     (see #11), unless that Net has a telephone number that is
     geographically located within the zone (e.g. a "Foreign
     Exchange" type line), or has notified the Zonegate to forward
     netmail through another Net or Node that has a telephone number
     within the Zone, or has agreed to poll the Zonegate
     periodically to receive Zonegated netmail.  A Zonegate may not
     refuse to forward netmail to a system for disciplinary or
     punitive reasons.  A Zonegate may require a Net Coordinator to
     poll the Zonegate if unusually large amounts of Netmail are
     being received by a particular Net.

     13)  It should be kept in mind that this nodelist is simply a
     directory listing compatible Nets, and the nodes in those Nets.
     The primary responsibility for determining whether or not a
     given node does or does not belong in this nodelist rests with
     the Net Coordinator.  In cases where we may be asked to remove
     a Net or a Node, we will consider doing so ONLY for technical
     reasons (e.g. the node's inability to communicate with other
     Official Public Computer Network compatible systems), and then
     only after consultation with the Network Coordinator.

     14)  We will initially try to resolve all disputes in a fair
     and friendly manner.  However, should there be a dispute that
     is otherwise unresolvable, we reserve the right to put the
     matter to a vote of Network Coordinators.  A notification of
     the dispute, and the time limits for voting, will be placed in
     the nodelist comments for at least two consecutive weeks, with
     the last notification at least two weeks before the votes are
     due in.  This procedure should only rarely be used, and only to
     resolve disputes over technical matters.  An example of a
     matter that might be put to such a vote is whether a particular
     mailer program is compatible enough to interface properly with
     other nodes listed in this nodelist.  WE WILL NOT ENTERTAIN
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 42                  26 Jun 1989


     DISPUTES REGARDING DISCIPLINARY OR POLITICAL MATTERS.

     15)  If at some point the need is felt for a more formal method
     of resolving disputes, or to otherwise amend this document, a
     committee will be appointed to make recommendations for
     amendment to this document.  These recommendations will be
     voted on by all Net Coordinators.  Where possible, such
     recommendations shall be considered on a "line item" basis, so
     that votes are not taken for an entire package of changes on a
     "take it or leave it" basis (although related items MAY be
     grouped together).  During this process, ALL suggestions from
     Sysops and Net Coordinators shall be given serious
     consideration, and no person's suggestions shall be dismissed
     out of hand due to personality conflicts with members of the
     committee.  In no case may the "prime directive" stated in item
     #1 be altered, nor may any cost or charge be instituted for
     being listed in the nodelist.  Any amendments to this document
     must be made primarily for the purpose of resolving technical
     problems and disputes, and NOT for the reason of giving any one
     group of Sysops a dominant position over another group.

     Also, it should be recognized that technology changes as time
     passes, and nothing is gained by insisting on adherence to
     outdated standards.  Therefore, if there are good reasons to
     modify the minimum standard for being listed in the nodelist,
     and if such a change will not adversely affect the vast
     majority of those listed, such modifications should not be
     dismissed out of hand.  At the same time, it should be the goal
     that any changes in the minimum standards should not force any
     existing nodes out of the nodelist, unless it's simply a matter
     of those nodes stubbornly refusing to upgrade their software to
     the latest versions.  However, in NO case should any action be
     taken that would force any Sysop to abandon a Public Domain (or
     other zero-cost) software program in favor of a commercial
     program (or a "shareware" type program that demands a
     registration fee from all users).

     [Editorial Note: I feel that I should make some statement
     regarding the fact that I feel that the Fidonet Technical
     Standards Committee is often far too unwilling to consider
     proposals for new and innovative ideas that would save money
     for all Sysops.  If, heaven help us, we ever feel the need to
     have a "Technical Standards Committee" to resolve issues
     pertaining to the OPCN nodelist, it should be composed of
     people who generally look at new ideas and proposals and ask
     "why not?", instead of people who are so resistant to any
     change that it takes them two years to act on a simple request
     to allow some additional nodelist flags.  It should also be
     composed of people who realize that not all Sysops have money
     to burn, and who believe that any ideas that would help save
     money for Sysops should be given speedy and thorough
     consideration.  And above all, these must be people who would
     not stoop to using "technical standards" as a smokescreen for
     kicking people out of the nodelist for other reasons that have
     nothing to do with the technical ability to send and receive
     mail.]
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 43                  26 Jun 1989


     16)  Finally, it must again be emphasized that although this
     nodelist is a directory of nodes that utilize software that is
     also commonly used in Fidonet, this nodelist is not in any way
     connected with Fidonet, or International FidoNet Association,
     or their nodelist.  We do not take nodelist fragments from the
     Fidonet nodelist.  All Net updates must be sent directly to us,
     or to one of the Nodelist Distribution Nodes.

     Final comments: In order to make this work, we have need for
     people that are able to perform one or more of three different
     jobs:

     a)  A person or persons that will actually compile the nodelist
     each week, from nodelist fragments received from Net
     Coordinators.  This must be someone who is capable of doing
     this job every week (or, perhaps, every two weeks) faithfully.
     It must also be someone who is willing to try and learn how to
     generate nodediffs, rather than simply issuing a complete full
     nodelist each week.  It would also be great if the completed
     nodelist could be made available on a PC Pursuitable node, to
     minimize expenses for those who have to poll for it.  The
     person currently maintaining the nodelist for one of the
     "alternative" networks might be an ideal choice for this
     position, provided that person has figured out how to generate
     nodediffs.

     b)  People who are willing to be in the Nodelist Distribution
     Network.  This basically involves polling for the nodediffs on
     a weekly basis, then making them available for file request on
     your system.  You may also be asked to help collect nodelist
     fragments from individual Nets and pass them upwards.  In no
     case should this require more than one or two calls per week
     (one to pass collected fragments upstream, and one to receive
     the completed nodelist).

     c)  Net Coordinators who are willing to send their nodelist
     fragments up for inclusion in the nodelist.

     If anyone would like to volunteer for any of these positions,
     please send netmail to me at 154/8, or to LCRnet node 1011/8.
     I will hold this information for forwarding to whoever winds up
     doing the job described under a) above.  Please note that due
     to the current situation between Net 154 and the Region 11 RC,
     we may be out of the Fidonet nodelist shortly, so I would again
     advise those who may wish to communicate with Net 154 nodes to
     use a text editor to clip the listing for Net 154 from a
     current Fidonet nodelist, so that you can place it in your
     private nodelist if necessary, at least until we can get the
     OPCN nodelist up and running.

     APPENDIX

     The following nodelist flags would initially be approved for
     use in the OPCN nodelist.  Note that there are a few minor
     differences from the Fidonet nodelist, e.g. Continuous Mail is
     considered the default condition rather than the exception,
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 44                  26 Jun 1989


     although use of the CM flag is still permitted; the file
     request flags should only be used by nodes that support file
     requests 23 hours a day, not including mail hour (don't you
     hate calling for a file request only to find that you've called
     during a period when file requests aren't allowed?), and some
     additional flags are allowed (in particular, flags that let you
     indicate what types of compressed mail packets your board can
     receive and process).

     The following codes are used to define operating hours:

         Code  Meaning

         DA    Daily
         WD    Week days
         WE    Week ends
         SU    Sundays
         SA    Saturday

     The following codes define special operating conditions:

         Code  Meaning

         CM    Accepts mail 24 hours per day (optional - the default)
         NC    Does NOT accept continuous mail (required where true)
         MO    Node does not accept human callers

     The following codes define modem protocols supported:

         Code  Meaning

         V21   CCITT V21   300 bps full duplex
         V22   CCITT V22   1200 bps full duplex
         V23   CCITT V23   1200/75 split baud rate view data mode
         V29   CCITT V29   9600 bps half duplex
         V32   CCITT V32   9600 bps full duplex
         V33   CCITT V33
         V34   CCITT V34
         H96   Hayes V9600
         HST   USR Courier HST
         MAX   Microcom AX/96xx series
         PEP   Packet Ensemble Protocol (Telebit Trailblazer)

         NOTE: Many V22 modems also support Bell 212


     The following codes define type of error correction available.
     A separate error correction code should not be used when the
     error correction type can be determined by the modem flag.  For
     instance, a modem code of HST implies MNP.

         Code  Meaning

         MNP   Microcom Networking Protocol error correction
         V42   LAP-M error correction w/fallback to MNP

     FidoNews 6-26                Page 45                  26 Jun 1989


     The following codes define the type(s) of compression that may
     be used on mail packets sent TO a node.

         Code         Meaning

         MN           No compression supported
         MC:x[...x]   Method of Compression. The letters following
                      the colon (which may be in any order) indicate
                      one or more of the following:

         C = unCrushing supported (PAK) - implies unSquashing &
             unCrunching also supported
         S = unSquashing supported (PKUNPAK, PKXARC, newer versions
             of ARCE) - implies unCrunching also supported
         N = unCrunching NOT supported (not valid with C or S)
         D = extraction of DWC packets supported
         L = extraction of LHARC packets supported
         R = extraction of PKZIP ("Reduced") packets supported
         Z = extraction of ZOO packets supported

         Limitations:

         C implies unSquashing and unCrunching, so C and S should
         NOT be used together

         N implies unCrunching NOT supported, therefore it's not
         valid in combination with either C or S.  MN and MC:N
         are equivalent.

         If NONE of these flags are used, it implies that only
         unCrunching is supported (this is the default).


     The following codes define the dedicated mail periods
     supported.  They have the form "#nn" or !nn where nn is the UTC
     hour the mail period begins, # indicates Bell 212
     compatibility, and !  indicates incompatibility with Bell 212:

         #02   European mail hour (02:30 - 03:30 UTC)
         #09   North American mail hour (09:00 - 10:00 UTC)
         #18   Western Pacific mail hour (18:00 - 19:00 UTC)

               NOTE: When applicable, the mail period flags may
               be strung together with no intervening commas, e.g.
               "#02#09".  Only mail hours other than that standard
               within a node's zone should be given.

     The following codes are used to facilitate netmail and echomail
     routing:

         Code                                      Meaning

         AKA:net[/node][|net[/node]|net[/node]...] Also Known As
         AI:net[/node][|net[/node]|net[/node]...]  Alternate Inbound
         PC:city code[extra access digits]         PC Pursuitable
         SL:[reserved - to be defined]             StarLinkable
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 46                  26 Jun 1989


     A sample PC flag usage would be as follows:

         PC:WIMIL        Node accessible via PC Pursuit in Milwaukee
         PC:ILCHI1815    Chicago area node in 815 area code that
                         requires "1-815" to be dialed in front of
                         number.  Hyphens are ALWAYS omitted.

     The following codes indicate the types of file/update requests
     supported 23 hours per day (Mail Hour excepted).

         Code  Meaning

         XA    Bark and WaZOO file/update requests
         XB    Bark file/update requests,  WaZOO file requests
         XC    Bark file requests, WaZOO file/update requests
         XP    Bark file/update requests
         XR    Bark and WaZOO file requests
         XW    WaZOO file requests


     The following code defines user-specific values. If present,
     this code MUST be the last code present in a nodelist entry.

         Code  Meaning

         Ux..x A user-specified string,  which may contain any
               alphanumeric character except blanks.  This string
               may contain one to thirty-two characters of
               information that may be used to add user-defined
               data to a specific nodelist entry.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 47                  26 Jun 1989


     Claude F. Witherspoon
     Fido 1:288/525 (Home of KidsNews)

            PUBLIC BROADCAST DELIVERS CLASSROOM COMPUTING IDEAS

     Its that time of year again. Computer Learning Month will be upon
     us before we know it. With that in mind,  we  at  KidsNews  would
     like  to  share  the  following information in hopes to make this
     year even better than last year:

     PALO  ALTO,  Calif.,  (March  7,  1989)  -- The Computer Learning
     Foundation  (CLF),  a  non-profit   organization   dedicated   to
     advancing computer literacy, announced today its sponsorship of a
     weekly  public broadcast television series entitled School Vision
     focusing on the integration of  technology  into  elementary  and
     secondary classroom curricula.

     "School  Vision  addresses  the  critical  need  of preparing our
     teachers to more  effectively  integrate  technology  into  every
     child's  learning  experience,"  said Sally Bowman, CLF director.
     "From special education to high school science and math teachers,
     our educators face the challenge - and opportunity  -  of  making
     computers as critical as textbooks are to classroom learning. The
     School  Vision broadcasts will share ideas and provide ppractical
     information for educators."

     According to U.S. Department of Education, there are more than 45
     million elementary and  secondary  students  in  schools  in  the
     United  States.  For  every  32  students, there is currently one
     microcomputer available. As the number of  computers  in  schools
     increases  -  it is expected to nearly double by 1990 - educators
     anticipate that computers will become as fundamental to  learning
     as  text  books  and  traditional  visual  aids.  To  prepare the
     country's more than three million educators,  the  weekly  School
     Vision  segments will show exiting examples of how technology has
     been brought into the classroom learning environment.

     The School Vision show will be broadcasts via local PBS stations,
     with dates and times varying depending on location.  Parents  and
     educators  are encouraged to contact their local public broadcast
     station  program  managers  and  ask  that  the   School   Vision
     broadcasts   be  picked  up,  via  satelitte,  from  the  Central
     Education Network for local viewing. All educators are invited to
     send videotapes highlighting how  computers  are  being  used  at
     their  schools.  Schools  submitting  videos  selected  to air on
     School Vision will receive free software programs courtesy of the
     Computer Learning Foundation sponsors. All video submissions  and
     inquiries  should  be  addressed  to  the  Foundation at P.O. Box
     60400, Palo Alto, Calif., 94306-0400.

     CLF is also sponsoring a national  teacher  training  competition
     and  plans to award developers of computer/teaching programs with
     computer systems donated by CLF  industry  sponsors.  Recognition
     will be given to top teacher programs  developed  for  the  early
     childhood   education   area,   special   education,   curriculum
     integration  (combining  social   studies,   foreign   languages,
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 48                  26 Jun 1989


     writing, art/music, math, science), and the "at risk" population.
     Educators  interested  in  receiving  more  information about the
     teacher training competition should write to  the  Foundation  at
     P.O. Box 60007, Palo Alto, Calif., 94306-0007.

     Spearheading the development and production of the weekly  School
     Vision  programs  is  a  coalition  of  industry  and educational
     organizations, including the  Central  Education  Network  (CEN),
     Software  Communications  Services  (SCS) and the CLF. The School
     Vision video briefings will be presented through WCET, Cincinnati
     and the Ohio Network Broadcasting Network Commission.

     The Computer Learning Foundation sponsors Computer Learning Month
     programs each October. The non-profit organization, based in Palo
     Alto, Calif., is supported by  leading  software  publishers  and
     computer  manufacturers  including,  Apple,  Commodore,  IBM  and
     Tandy, as well as 52 U.S.  State  Departments  of  Education  and
     Canadian  Ministries  of  Education,  and  more  than 20 national
     non-profit organizations.

     Published  with  permission  of  the Computer Learning Foundation
     (CLF), Palo Alto, Calif.

     I  have  initiated  a  National  Computer  Learning  Month   echo
     available  on Fido 1:288/525 by request. If you are interested in
     carrying the echo which uses the name NCLM, please send a request
     to Butch Witherspoon, Fido 1:288/525 (Continuous Mail (CM)),  and
     I  will  be  happy  to  tie you into the echo and send it to your
     system. You must be able  to  accept  continuous  Mail  for  this
     request.  This  offer  is  good  for  the U.S. only until someone
     offeres to gateway the echo to other regions. I would like to see
     the echo carried on the Backbone if folks are interested enough.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 49                  26 Jun 1989


     ---------------------------------------------------------------
                              SAPMFC&LP
     ---------------------------------------------------------------

     Come one, come all, to the SECOND ANNUAL POOR MAN'S FIDOCON &
     LAKE PARTY !!! Join us for the fun of it, July 14-16 1989, West
     Towakani, Texas.

     Nets 124 and 130 are pleased to announce the sequel to last
     year's PMFC&LP, which was a smashing success!  We hope to again
     see our good friends from around Region 19 and all of FidoNet.

     Admission is FREE TO ALL, with camping, fishing, and a
     Texas-Style PARTY all included in the price!  Bring the family!

     WARNING!  Any person found in possession of a computer (or any
     device even remotely resembling a computer) at this event will
     be summarily thrown into the lake, per PMFC&LP tradition.
     Those in possession of floppy disks and/or DOS or programming
     manuals may be subject to similar disciplinary action.

     Map/Instructions/Info follows -- not meant for monitor display,
     please print!

     ---------------------------Tear Here---------------------------

            1989 Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon & Lake Party
                             July 15-16, 1989
                           West Towakani, Texas
                        Hosted by Nets 124 and 130

     ===============================================================

                          NAVIGATIONAL HELP

     ===============================================================

     From DALLAS:

     Take I-30 EAST approximately 25 miles from downtown Dallas to
     the junction with State Highway 205 (Exit 68, Milepost 69).
     There is a large "76" Truck Stop at this exit.

     Take Exit 68, and follow State Highway 205 SOUTH for 1/10 mile.
     Make the FIRST LEFT (happens quickly) onto State Highway 276.

     Follow State Highway 276 EAST for 19.5 miles until it dead ends
     at the junction with State Highway 34 in the town of Quinlan,
     Tx. (There will be a Dairy Queen right in front of you)

     Turn RIGHT (South) onto State Highway 34 and proceed 1/2 mile
     to the junction with State Highway 35 (traffic light).

     Turn LEFT (East) onto State Highway 35 and proceed 7.1 miles to
     the large "Anchor Inn" sign on the left.  Directly across the
     road on the RIGHT is the entrance to the campground. (Note for
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 50                  26 Jun 1989


     late arrivals: Sign is well lighted)

     Turn RIGHT just past the "Catfish Inn" Restaurant and follow
     the gravel road (blacktop in places) back into the campground.

     IMPORTANT!!! Please check in at the office upon arrival, as all
     vehicles will require a pass/permit.  Tell them you're with the
     DFW Sysops Group.

     Anchor Inn phone: (214) 447-2256

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

     From POINTS EAST using I-30:

     Take I-30 WEST to the junction with State Highway 34 at Canton,
     Tx.

     Take the State Highway 34 Exit and turn SOUTH onto State
     Highway 34.  Follow State Highway 34 for approximately 19 miles
     into the town of Quinlan, Tx.

     As you are coming into Quinlan, you will pass a large Dairy
     Queen on the left. From the Dairy Queen, continue straight
     ahead for 1/2 mile to the junction with State Highway 35
     (traffic light).

     Turn LEFT (East) onto State Highway 35 and follow the "From
     Dallas" instructions listed above.

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

     From POINTS EAST USING I-20:

     Follow I-20 WEST to the junction of State Highway 34 at
     Terrell, Tx.

     Turn NORTH onto State Highway 34 and proceed approximately 17
     miles to the junction of State Highway 35 (traffic light) in
     the town of Quinlan, Tx.

     Turn RIGHT (East) onto State Highway 35 and follow the "From
     Dallas" instructions listed above.

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

     From POINTS SOUTH:

     Because I-20 and I-30 "merge" just east of Dallas, if you are
     coming in via I-35, I-45, or U.S. 67 (or a similar route), your
     best route is to get on I-20 and follow it EAST to the junction
     with I-30, then take I-30 EAST and follow the "From Dallas"
     instructions listed above.

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

     FidoNews 6-26                Page 51                  26 Jun 1989


     ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:

     The campground has a marina, store, tent sites, RV/trailer
     sites, electric and water hookups, picnic tables, showers, and
     sanitary facilities.  It is located in the small town of West
     Towakani, TX, with restauarants, stores, shops, gas, and
     medical facilities within a 5 mile radius.  Beer/Wine/Liquor
     are available locally.

     Full RV Hookups (water/electric/sewer/parking) will be
     available to members of our group for $6.00 per night, which is
     half the going rate.  The RV spaces are about 200 yards from
     the area we have reserved.  RV parking (no hookups) is free to
     members of our group.

     We have reserved a large area right on the water, including a
     real nice area for those who choose to pitch tents.

     There are several picnic tables at the site we've reserved,
     including several which are under a nice ramada near the water.
     This ramada will likely become the "center" of activity.

     There is no electricity available at the site, so bring lots of
     batteries for your boom box.

     Restrooms are less than 100 yards away.

     There is no fresh water at the site, but it is available within
     150 yards.

     We've had a rainy year in North Texas -- bring plenty of insect
     repellant!

     The owners of the campground say that prior campers have
     destroyed their BBQ grills -- they have new ones on order, but
     they may not arrive by our party date.  Anyone with a LARGE
     grill, please let us hear from you, otherwise, a Hibachi/Weber
     might be a good thing to bring...

     The site we're using will allow the landing of most any boat...

     For anyone unfamiliar with Texas' archaic "Blue Laws" -- hard
     liquor cannot be purchased legally on Sunday, though beer is
     available 7 days a week... (?!?!?) Also, liquor stores close by
     law at 9:00 p.m. daily, Mon-Sat.

     Beer can be purchased legally in many food/convenience stores 7
     days per week until 2:00 a.m. daily.

     For those who wish to help, the following items will be surely
     be needed:

     Friendly folks
     Good will
     Fellowship
     Fresh water
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 52                  26 Jun 1989


     Lawn/Beach Chairs
     Ice
     Charcoal/Propane
     Coleman lanterns
     Firewood
     Paper supplies (Paper plates, Napkins, Paper towels, T.P.)
     Condiments (Mustard, Catsup, Relish, Salt, Pepper)
     Side dishes (Potato salad, Cole slaw, desserts)
     Beer (Should this have been *first*?)  :-)
     First Aid Supplies
     Dishwashing/Laundry soap
     Duct Tape - It's hamster season in TX... Pa-Pa-Ooh-Maow-Maow!


     PLEASE DRIVE CAREFULLY!  REMEMBER -- DEAD SYSOPS DON'T READ
     ECHOMAIL!


     ---------------------------Tear Here---------------------------

     Last year's "First Annual Poor Man's FidoCon & Lake Party" was
     a real blast, with folks from all over Region 19 in attendance
     -- we're hoping this year's blowout will be even bigger and
     better.

     Families are encouraged to attend, so bring the spouse and
     kids!

     Hope to see you there!

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 53                  26 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                  COLUMNS
     =================================================================


                         THE LOST FIDONET ARCHIVES
                                VOLUME FOUR

                  Compiled by various members of FidoNet
                         Edited by Vince Perriello


     This is  the  fourth article in a series which reprints documents
     of historical significance  to FidoNet.  This week we feature Tom
     Jennings'  second  FidoNet  History document,  which  added  more
     history and amended the "original policy", from August 1985.

     Please note that most  if  not all of the FidoNet addresses, data
     line phone numbers, and company  names and/or addresses mentioned
     in this or any of the  other  articles  in this series are not to
     be considered reliable for current use in  locating  something or
     someone  mentioned here.  Refer to the current  nodelist  if  you
     want to try to find any of the above.

     Following is the contents of FIDONET.DC2:


     This is Part Two in the  history  of FidoNet.  It turned out that
     the original FIDOHIST.DOC (now called FIDOHIST.DC1, or just "Part
     One") was useful, and many people read it.  Unfortunately, by the
     time  everyone  read  it, it became totally obsolete.   Oh  well.
     Here is Part Two.

     FIDOHIST.DOC  covered  the  early  history of FidoNet, why it was
     done,  how it was done, and the reasons for the organization  and
     obscure rituals  surrounding node numbers.  If you havent read it
     yet, I suggest  you do now, because I'll probably refer to things
     that won't make any sense otherwise.

     The original FidoNet was  organized  very  simply;   each FidoNet
     system (each node) had a  number that served like a phone number,
     uniquely identifying it.  The NODELIST, generated by the folks in
     St.  Louis that had all FidoNet nodes in it, contains information
     on  all known FidoNet systems.  Every system  in  FidoNet  had  a
     current  copy of the NODELIST, which served as the  directory  of
     systems.

     (In  the  interests  of  brevity I'm leaving out huge amounts  of
     information;  I hope you have read FIODHIST.DOC by now ...)

     FidoNet has been growing steadily since it started by accident in
     May 84 or so.  The node list continued to get out  of  hand;  the
     original FIDOHIST.DOC was  written  to try and help smooth things
     out.  It is  impossible  to  overemphasize  the  amount  of  work
     involved in keeping the node  list accurate.  Basically, the guys
     in St.  Louis were keeping  track  of hundreds of FidoNet systems
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 54                  26 Jun 1989


     in  Boston,  Los  Angeles,  London,  Stockholm  and  Sweden,  and
     publishing  the  results  weekly.  There has never  been  such  a
     comprehensive   and  accurate  list  of  bulletin  board  systems
     generated.


     We talked  for  many  months  as  to how we could possibly find a
     solution to the  many  problems;   it was at the point where if a
     solution was not found  in  a few months (by Aug.  85 or so) that
     FidoNet would collapse due to the sheer weight of it's node list.

     The newsletter, FidoNews, was, and  still is, an integral part of
     the process of FidoNet.  FidoNews  is  the only thing that unites
     all FidoNet sysops consistently;  please keep  up  to date on it,
     and stock it for your users if you  have  the  disk  space.   And
     contribute if you can!  [Thanks, Tom.  Never  hurts  to make that
     point again -- ed.]

     There  were many constraints on the kind of things we  could  do;
     we  had  no  money,  so  it  had  to  be  done  for   zero  cost.
     Centralization was out,  so  obviously localization was in;  just
     how to do it  was  a  total unknown.  We thought of going back to
     having people in different areas  handle  new  node  requests  in
     their  area, but that always generated  confusion  as  to  who  a
     person should go to, how to avoide  having  someone  requesting a
     node number from different people simultaneously, etc etc.

     The  old method of routing was very different  than  the  current
     method,  and  much  more complex;  instead of Fido  automatically
     routing  to  hosts, each sysop had to specify (via the  ROUTE.BBS
     file)  how  all  routing  was done in the system.  The  was  done
     originally by hand,  later  by  John  Warren's  (102/31) NODELIST
     program.

     Then of course there  was the problem that no matter what we did,
     it would not be done  overnight.    (ha  ha.)  It would take many
     weeks at the least, possibly months,  so that whatever we did had
     to be compatible with the old method as well.

     We  went  through  probably hundreds of ideas  in  the  next  few
     months,  some  possibly  useful,  some  insane.   Eventually  the
     insanity boiled down to a pretty workable system.   We chatted by
     FidoNet  and  by voice telephone.  Eventually, we settled on  the
     two  part  number  scheme,  like the phone company does with area
     codes and exchanges.  It accomodated backwards compatibility (you
     can keep your present node  number)  and the new "area code" (net
     number) could be added into an  existing  field that had been set
     to zero.  (This is why everyone was originally part of net #1).


     When a fortunate set of circumstances was  to  bring Ezra Shapiro
     and  me  to  St.    Louis  to  speak  to  the  McDonnell  Douglas
     Recreational Computer Club on XXXX 11th, we planned ahead  for  a
     national  FidoNet sysops meeting that weekend.  [Note -- this was
     the first  FidoCon  -- ed.] Ken and Sally Kaplan were kind enough
     to tolerate having all of us in their living room.
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 55                  26 Jun 1989


     The people who showed up were (need that list) The meeting lasted
     ten continuous hours;   it was the most productive meeting I (and
     most others) had attended.   When  we were done, we had basically
     the whole thing layed out in every detail.

     We stuck with the area code business (now known as net and region
     numbers) and worked out how to break  things  up into regions and
     nets.    It  was just one of those  rare  but  fortunate  events;
     during  the morning things went "normally", but in the  afternoon
     solutions fell into place one by one, so that by  late  afternoon
     we had the entire picture laid out in black and white.    Two  or
     three months  of brainstorming just flowed smoothly into place in
     one afternoon ...

     What we had  done was exactly what we have now, though we changed
     the name of "Admin"  to  "Region", and added the "alternate" node
     and net numbers.  (We  still  seem to be stuck with that terrible
     and inaccurate word, "manager".  Any  ideas?)  I previously had a
     buggy test hack running using area codes,  and the week after the
     meeting it was made to conform to what  we  had talked about that
     Saturday.

     When  version  10C  was  done,  it  accomplished  more  or   less
     everything we wanted, but it sure did take a long  time.  10C was
     probably the single largest change ever made to Fido/FidoNet, and
     the most thoroughly tested version.  At 10M, there are STILL bugs
     left from that early version, in spite of the testing.

     Once the testing  got  serious,  and  it  looked  like  we  had a
     shippable version, St.   Louis  froze  the node list, and started
     slicing it into pieces, to  give to the soon-to-be net and region
     managers.  (That word again.) This  caused a tremendous amount of
     trouble for would-be sysops;  not only was it difficult enough to
     figure out how on earth to get a  node number, once they did they
     were  told  node  numbers  weren't  being  given  out  just  yet.
     Explaining  why was even harder, since FIDOHIST.DC2 (ahem) wasn't
     written yet.   (I have to agree, this thing is a little bit late)
     It was a  typical  case  of those who already knew were informaed
     constantly of updates, but  thse  in  the  dark  had a hard time.
     Things  were  published  fairly  regularly    (am  I  remembering
     "conveniently" or "accurately" on this part?)


     Eventually, 10C was released, and seemed  to  work  fairly  well,
     ignoring all the small scale disasters due  to  bugs,  etc.    We
     couldn't just swap over to the new area  code business until very
     close to 100% of all Fidos were using the  new version.  This was
     (for me) an excruciating period, basically a "hurry up and  wait"
     situation.  There had not been a node list release for a month or
     two,  and  for  all practical purposes it looked like FidoNet had
     halted ...

     Finally, on  June  12th,  we  all swapped over to the new system;
     that afternoon, sysops  were to set their net number (it had been
     "1" for backwards compatibility),  copy  in  the  new  node  list
     issued just for this occasion,  and go.  I assumed the result was
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 56                  26 Jun 1989


     going  to  be perpetual chaos, bringing  about  the  collapse  of
     FidoNet.  Almost the exact opposite was  true;   things went very
     smoothly  (yes, there were problems, but when you  consider  that
     FidoNet consists of microcomputers owned by almost 300 people who
     had never even talked to each other ...)

     Within a month or so, just about every Fido had  swapped  over to
     the  area code, or net/node architecture.  With a few exceptions,
     things went  very  smoothly.    No  one  was  more  suprised than
     pessimistic I.   At  this  time, August, I don't think there is a
     single system still using the old node number method.

     This is all well  and  fine  as  far as the software goes, but it
     made a mess for new  sysops.   For us sysops who have been around
     for a while, there was no  great  problem,  as we saw the changes
     happen one by one.  However, new  sysops  frequently  came out of
     the blue;  armed with a diskette full  of code, they attempted to
     set up a FidoNet node.

     Actually, I don't understand how anyone does it.  The information
     needed is not recorded in any place that a non  sysop could find.
     On top of that, most of it is now totally wrong!    If you follow
     the original  instructions,  it  said  "call  Fido #1 ..." if you
     found a real  antique,  or  "calling  Fido #51 ..." if it is more
     current.  Of course now it tells you to find your region manager.
     "Region manager???" Well, a list of region managers was published
     in FidoNews, but unless you read  FidoNews,  how does anyone ever
     find out?  I'll probably never know.


     ANYWAYS  ...  the original reason for  all  the  changes  was  to
     DECENTRALIZE FidoNet.  It just wasn't possible for  Ken Kaplan to
     keep accurate, up to date information on every Fido in the US and
     Europe.    The  decentralization  has  been more or less a  total
     success.  The  number  of  problems  introduced  were  negligable
     compared to the problems  solved,  and even most new problems are
     by this time solved.

     It is interesting to note that with the hundreds of systems there
     are today, the national FidoNet hour  is less crowded than it was
     when there were only 50 nodes.

     Please, keep in mind that no one  has  done  anything  like  this
     before, we are all winging it, and learning (hopefully) as we go.
     Please be patient with problems, none of us is  paid  to do this,
     and it is more and more work as time goes  on.   Somehow it seems
     to all get done ...

     HOW TO GET A NODE NUMBER AND ALL THAT

     20 August 1985

     This  is by necessity a very general idea of how it's  done,  and
     you  were  warned  earlier  that  this  may be obsolete this very
     minute;   with that, here's the "current" process for starting up
     a new FidoNet node.
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 57                  26 Jun 1989


     You can of  course  skip  all or part of this if you've done this
     before;  if you haven't, well, be prepared for a lot of searching
     and asking questions.


     Of course, you need to  have  your Fido BBS system running first.
     It's probably best that you play  with  it  for  a while, and get
     some experience with how it all works,  and  whether you have the
     patience to run a BBS.  It can  get  exasperating,  and  you will
     never find time to use the computer ever again.

     Obtain the most recent copy of the nodelist possible;    thi  may
     take  some  searching.  If you get totally lost, you  can  always
     contact  Fido  125/1 or Fido 100/51;  though these are very  busy
     systems,  they both usually have the very latest of anything, and
     can direct you to the right place.

     The big  problem  here is to find out if oyu are in a net or not,
     and if not,  then  who  your  region manager is.  If you are in a
     lrge city (Los Angeles, Cincinnati, etc) then there is probably a
     net in your area.   Look through the node list (use the N)odebook
     command in Fido, or a text  editor)  for  the  right area code or
     city.

     If there is no net in your  area,  then you are part of a region.
     This is a little harder, because regions are large, and sometomes
     cover many states.  Look at all the regions in the node list, you
     should find a region that fits you.

     Once you find this, you have to contact the net or region manager
     to get your node number.  Exactly how this is done depends on who
     the  manager  is,  and  how sticky they are fir details.  A  near
     universal requirement is  that you send your request via FidoNet,
     not by manully;   this isn't done to make you life difficult, but
     to ensure that your system  is  really  working  right.    IF you
     manage to get a FidoNet message  to the manager, its usually safe
     to assume that you're system is working  OK.   If you get a reply
     in return, then you know both directions work.

     It is usually each sysops' responsibility to go  get  the  latest
     nodelist  and  newsletters;    they  are  not distributed to  all
     systems because of the expense.  (Though, I'm trying to  get them
     distributed to more places than they are now, it's sometimes very
     difficult to get a copy of the nodelist!)

     Again, read  the  FidoNew  newsletter regularly;  it is about the
     only way to  stay in contact with the rest of the net.  Programs,
     problems, services, bugs and interesting announcements can always
     be found there.  FidoNews  articles  don't  come out of thin air;
     send in anythnig you think might be of interest.  They don't have
     to be lifetime masterpieces, or even well written.

     Please remember the entire network is made  of the sysops;  there
     is  no  central  location from which good things  come,  the  net
     consists entirely of the sysops and their contributions.   If you
     don't do it, chances are no one else will!
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 58                  26 Jun 1989


                             Tom Jennings
                             20 Aug 85



     Ken Kaplan              Fido 100/51     314/432-4129
     Tom Jennings            Fido 125/1      415/864-1418
     Ben Baker               Fido 100/10     314/234-1462

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 59                  26 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                              LATEST VERSIONS
     =================================================================

                          Latest Software Versions

                           Bulletin Board Software
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

     Fido            12m+*  Phoenix         1.3    TBBS           2.1
     Lynx           1.30    QuickBBS       2.03    TComm/TCommNet 3.4
     Opus          1.03b+   RBBS          17.2A*   TPBoard        5.2*

     + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)


     Network                Node List              Other
     Mailers     Version    Utilities   Version    Utilities  Version

     BinkleyTerm    2.20    EditNL         4.00    ARC           6.02*
     D'Bridge       1.18    MakeNL         2.12    ARCmail        2.0
     Dutchie       2.90C    ParseList      1.30    ConfMail      4.00
     FrontDoor       2.0    Prune          1.40    EMM           2.02*
     PRENM          1.47*   XlatList       2.90    GROUP         2.10*
     SEAdog         4.51*   XlaxDiff       2.32    MSG            3.3*
                            XlaxNode       2.32    MSGED         1.99
                                                   TCOMMail       2.2*
                                                   TMail         1.11*
                                                   TPBNetEd       3.2*
                                                   UFGATE        1.03
                                                   XRS            2.2
     * Recently changed

     Utility authors:  Please help  keep  this  list  up  to  date  by
     reporting  new  versions  to 1:1/1.  It is not our intent to list
     all utilities here, only those which verge on necessity.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 60                  26 Jun 1989


     =================================================================
                                  NOTICES
     =================================================================

                          The Interrupt Stack


      9 Jul 1989
        FidoNet's Zone 4 (Latin America)  adopts 0800 GMT as new Zone
        Mail Hour, replacing the North American 0900 GMT schedule.

     15 Jul 1989
        Start of the SAPMFC&LP (Second Annual Poor Man's FidoCon and
        Lake Party) to be held at Silver Lake Park on Grapevine Lake
        in Arlington, Texas.  This started as an R19-only thing last
        year, but we had so much fun, we decided to invite everybody!
        We'll have beer, food, beer, waterskiing, beer, horseshoes,
        beer, volleyball, and of course beer.  It's an  overnighter,
        so bring your sleeping bag and plan to camp out.  Contact one
        of the Furriers (Ron Bemis at 1:124/1113 or Dewey Thiessen at
        1:130/24) for details and a fantastic ASCII map.

      2 Aug 1989
        Start of Galactic Hacker Party in Amsterdam, Holland. Contact
        Rop Gonggrijp at 2:280/1 for details.

     24 Aug 1989
        Voyager 2 passes Neptune.

     24 Aug 1989
        FidoCon '89 starts at the Holiday Inn in San Jose,
        California.  Trade show, seminars, etc. Contact 1:1/89
        for info.

      5 Oct 1989
        20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus"

     11 Oct 1989
        First International Modula-2 Conference at Bled, Yugoslavia
        hosting Niklaus Wirth and the British Standards Institution.
        Contact 1:106/8422 for more information.

     11 Nov 1989
        A new area code forms in northern Illinois at 12:01 am.
        Chicago proper will remain area code 312; suburban areas
        formerly served with that code will become area code 708.


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

     FidoNews 6-26                Page 61                  26 Jun 1989


            OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION

     Mort Sternheim 1:321/109  Chairman of the Board
     Bob Rudolph    1:261/628  President
     Matt Whelan    3:3/1      Vice President
     Bill Bolton    3:711/403  Vice President-Technical Coordinator
     Linda Grennan  1:147/1    Secretary
     Kris Veitch    1:147/30   Treasurer


            IFNA COMMITTEE AND BOARD CHAIRS

     Administration and Finance     Mark Grennan    1:147/1
     Board of Directors             Mort Sternheim  1:321/109
     Bylaws                         Don Daniels     1:107/210
     Ethics                         Vic Hill        1:147/4
     Executive Committee            Bob Rudolph     1:261/628
     International Affairs          Rob Gonsalves   2:500/1
     Membership Services            David Drexler   1:147/47
     Nominations & Elections        David Melnick   1:107/233
     Public Affairs                 David Drexler   1:147/47
     Publications                   Rick Siegel     1:107/27
     Security & Individual Rights   Jim Cannell     1:143/21
     Technical Standards            Rick Moore      1:115/333


                      IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS

         DIVISION                               AT-LARGE

     10  Courtney Harris   1:102/732    Don Daniels     1:107/210
     11  Bill Allbritten   1:11/301     Mort Sternheim  1:321/109
     12  Bill Bolton       3:711/403    Mark Grennan    1:147/1
     13  Irene Henderson   1:107/9       (vacant)
     14  Ken Kaplan        1:100/22     Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5
     15  Scott Miller      1:128/12     Matt Whelan     3:3/1
     16  Ivan Schaffel     1:141/390    Robert Rudolph  1:261/628
     17  Neal Curtin       1:343/1      Steve Jordan    1:206/2871
     18  Andrew Adler      1:135/47     Kris Veitch     1:147/30
     19  David Drexler     1:147/47      (vacant)
      2  Henk Wevers       2:500/1      David Melnik    1:107/233

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 62                  26 Jun 1989


                                                        __
                                   The World's First   /  \
                                      BBS Network     /|oo \
                                      * FidoNet *    (_|  /_)
     FidoCon '89 in San Jose, California              _`@/_ \    _
       at The Holiday Inn Park Plaza                 |     | \   \\
            August 24-27, 1989                       | (*) |  \   ))
                                        ______       |__U__| /  \//
                                       / Fido \       _//|| _\   /
                                      (________)     (_/(_|(____/ (tm)


                     R E G I S T R A T I O N   F O R M


     Name:    _______________________________________________________

     Address:    ____________________________________________________

     City:    _______________________ State: ____ Zip: ______________

     Country:    ____________________________________________________


     Phone Numbers:

     Day:    ________________________________________________________

     Evening:    ____________________________________________________

     Data:    _______________________________________________________


     Zone:Net/
     Node.Point:  ___________________________________________________

     Your BBS Name:  ________________________________________________


     BBS Software:  _____________________ Mailer: ___________________

     Modem Brand:  _____________________ Speed:  ____________________

     At what hotel will you be staying:  ____________________________

     Do you want an in room point?  (Holiday Inn only) ______________

     Are you a Sysop?  _____________

     Are you an IFNA Member?  ______

     Additional Guests:  __________
     (not attending conferences)

     Do you have any special requirements? (Sign Language translation,
     handicapped, etc.)
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 63                  26 Jun 1989


               ______________________________________________________


     Comments: ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________

               ______________________________________________________


     Costs                                   How Many?   Cost
     ---------------------------             --------    -------

     Conference fee $60 .................... ________    _______
        ($75.00 after July 15)

     Friday Banquet  $30.00 ................ ________    _______

                                             ========    =======

     Totals ................................ ________    _______

     You may pay by Check,  Money Order,  or Credit Card.  Please send
     no  cash.   All monies must be in U.S.  Funds.   Checks should be
     made out to: "FidoCon '89"


     This form should be completed and mailed to:

                         Silicon Valley FidoCon '89
                         PO Box 390770
                         Mountain View, CA 94039


     You may register by Netmailing this completed form to 1:1/89  for
     processing.   Rename  it  to  ZNNNXXXX.REG where Z is  your  Zone
     number, N is your Net number, and X is your Node number.  US Mail
     confirmation  is  required  within  72  hours  to  confirm   your
     registration.

     If  you are paying by credit card,  please include the  following
     information.   For  your own security,  do not route any  message
     with your credit card number on it.  Crash it directly to 1:1/89.


     Master Card _______     Visa ________


     Credit Card Number _____________________________________________


     Expiration Date ________________________________________________

     Signature ______________________________________________________

     No  credit  card registrations will be accepted without  a  valid
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 64                  26 Jun 1989


     signature.


     Rooms  at the Holiday Inn may be reserved by calling the Hotel at
     408-998-0400,  and mentioning that you are with  FidoCon.   Rooms
     are $60.00 per night double occupancy.   Additional rollaways are
     available  for $10.00 per night.   To obtain these rates you must
     register before July 15.

     The official FidoCon '89 airline is American Airlines.   You  can
     receive  either  a  5%  reduction in supersaver fares  or  a  40%
     reduction in the regular day coach fare.  San Jose is an American
     Airlines  hub  with direct flights to most  major  cities.   When
     making reservations, you must call American's reservation number,
     800-433-1790, and reference Star number S0289VM.

     The official FidoCon '89 automobile rental agency is Alamo Rent a
     Car.  Rates are as described below. All rates  include  automatic
     transmission, air conditioning, radio, and unlimited mileage.

     Economy car (example: Geo Metro)  $32 day/$109 week.
     Compact car (example: Chevy Cavalier) $34 day/$120 week.
     Midsize car (example: Pontiac Grand Am) $36 day/$135 week.
     Standard car (example: Buick Regal) $38 day/$165 week.
     Luxury car (example: Buick LeSabre) $40 day/$239 week.

     To take advantage of this rate, call Alamo at 1-800-327-9633  and
     request  the convention rate. Mention FidoCon '89,  the  location
     and dates.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 6-26                Page 65                  26 Jun 1989


                                      __
                 The World's First   /  \
                    BBS Network     /|oo \
                    * FidoNet *    (_|  /_)
                                    _`@/_ \    _
                                   |     | \   \\
                                   | (*) |  \   ))
                      ______       |__U__| /  \//
                     / Fido \       _//|| _\   /
                    (________)     (_/(_|(____/ (tm)

            Membership for the International FidoNet Association

     Membership in IFNA is open to any individual or organization that
     pays  a  specified  annual   membership  fee.   IFNA  serves  the
     international  FidoNet-compatible  electronic  mail  community to
     increase worldwide communications.

     Member Name _______________________________  Date _______________
     Address _________________________________________________________
     City ____________________________________________________________
     State ________________________________  Zip _____________________
     Country _________________________________________________________
     Home Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________
     Work Phone (Voice) ______________________________________________

     Zone:Net/Node Number ____________________________________________
     BBS Name ________________________________________________________
     BBS Phone Number ________________________________________________
     Baud Rates Supported ____________________________________________
     Board Restrictions ______________________________________________

     Your Special Interests __________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     In what areas would you be willing to help in FidoNet? __________
     _________________________________________________________________
     _________________________________________________________________
     Send this membership form and a check or money order for $25 in
     US Funds to:
                   International FidoNet Association
                   PO Box 41143
                   St Louis, Missouri 63141
                   USA

     Thank you for your membership!  Your participation will help to
     insure the future of FidoNet.

     Please NOTE that IFNA is a general not-for-profit organization
     and Articles of Association and By-Laws were adopted by the
     membership in January 1987.  The second elected Board of Directors
     was filled in August 1988.  The IFNA Echomail Conference has been
     established on FidoNet to assist the Board.  We welcome your
     input to this Conference.

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