     Volume 8, Number  5                               4 February 1991
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     |                                                  _            |
     |                                                 /  \          |
     |                                                /|oo \         |
     |        - FidoNews -                           (_|  /_)        |
     |                                                _`@/_ \    _   |
     |         FidoNet (r)                           |     | \   \\  |
     |  International BBS Network                    | (*) |  \   )) |
     |         Newsletter               ______       |__U__| /  \//  |
     |                                 / FIDO \       _//|| _\   /   |
     |                                (________)     (_/(_|(____/    |
     |                                                     (jm)      |
     +---------------------------------------------------------------+
     Editor in Chief:                                  Vince Perriello
     Editors Emeritii:                    Thom Henderson,  Dale Lovell
     Chief Procrastinator Emeritus:                       Tom Jennings
     
     Copyright 1991, Fido Software.  All rights reserved.  Duplication
     and/or distribution permitted  for  noncommercial  purposes only.
     For use in other circumstances, please  contact  Fido Software.
     
     FidoNews  is  published  weekly by and for  the  Members  of  the
     FidoNet (r) International Amateur Electronic Mail System.   It is
     a compilation of individual articles contributed by their authors
     or authorized agents of the authors. The contribution of articles
     to this compilation does not diminish the rights of the authors.
     
     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.
     
     Fido and  FidoNet  are  registered  trademarks of Tom Jennings of
     Fido Software, Box  77731,  San  Francisco  CA 94107, USA and are
     used with permission.
     
     Opinions expressed in  FidoNews articles are those of the authors
     and are not necessarily  those of the Editor or of Fido Software.
     Most articles are unsolicited.   Our  policy  is to publish every
     responsible submission received.


                        Table of Contents
     1. EDITORIAL  ................................................  1
        While I Was Out  ..........................................  1
     2. ARTICLES  .................................................  3
        Who Runs the Show?  .......................................  3
        ZEC Questionaire Response - Tony Davis  ...................  6
        ZEC Questionaire Response - Amnon Nissan  ................. 11
        ZEC Questionaire Response - Dean Lachan  .................. 13
        ZEC Questionnaire Response - Butch Walker  ................ 15
        Censoring news in the 'Information Age'  .................. 19
        ZEC Questionaire Response - John Roberts  ................. 21
        A NETWORK FOR MATERIEL MANAGERS  .......................... 28
     And more!
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 1                    4 Feb 1991


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


     Hello, folks.

     I'd just sit back and let this week's FidoNews do its magic, but
     it happens that there are several things which I need to bring
     to your attention.

     First of all, I've changed the system which I am using as a
     collection and routing point for 1:1/1. This change has been
     made primarily because the old system was getting the worst of a
     battle with the telephone company regarding line quality. You
     know the story. In any event, we've changed over and the new
     entry has already appeared in this week's Z1 nodelist segment.
     Until we're fairly certain that all segments have been updated
     we'll try to keep the other system up-to-date and will collect
     submissions received there.

     This business of using another person's system to do my "dirty
     work" has been a moby nuisance.  However, I expect to be
     addressing this issue in about a month as I am finally going to
     install a data line here and put up my own inhouse public access
     system again. I'll keep you posted on that.

     I received some netmail from an old friend who was concerned
     about the article we printed last week regarding a BBS-oriented
     publication. He felt that it might not be entirely appropriate
     to print what amounts to an advertisement in FidoNews, which is
     distributed gratis. His point is well taken. However, we have
     already determined that articles from such vendors as System
     Enhancement Associates and U.S. Robotics should be printed, as
     their content is targeted specifically for sysops, and use of
     their products enriche the experience of the sysop community as
     a whole. By the same token, a publication specifically targeted
     at sysops seemed appropriate, in my opinion. There are limits to
     what will appear, however. I chose not to print an article of
     the "get your users to buy from us and we'll send you a
     kickback" kind (which had already been widely distributed in a
     netmail bombing run anyway), as this type of article is clearly
     commercial in nature and has little to do with sysops except as
     middlemen in monetary transactions.

     Some cleric in California said it was too late to pray for peace.
     It's probably too late to pray for his soul, too. But I'll give
     it a whack.

     What do you think about the political model in FidoNet? I think
     this democratic dictatorship model works pretty well. The mail
     seems to get through, jerks get people pissed off in dreckomail,
     people learn stuff in technical conferences -- in short, things
     happen as expected, when expected. If we divided problems
     encountered by messages transmitted, I think we'd be better than
     any COMMERCIAL service (take that, Prodigy :-)
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 2                    4 Feb 1991


     Now we're electing a new Zone 1 Echomail Coordinator. The field
     of candidates is pretty impresssive, too. Lots of old war
     horses, every one of which I can claim to have met and whose
     company I have enjoyed. What a wonderful dilemma, choosing
     between them. I feel they have all demonstrated their skills and
     commitment in the past and would no doubt do so again as Z1EC.
     However, I admit that I do have a favorite.

     The gentleman I have in mind is probably the one you have heard
     the least about. This is because he's the most unassuming of the
     group. He quietly goes about his business, fixing a problem
     here, smoothing ruffled feathers there, and just makes things
     happen. He is also, in my opinion, the least political of the
     group, and the technophile in me really appreciates that.

     The gentleman I would most like to see as Z1EC is Dean Lachan. If
     you've not had any dealings with him, give him a look-see. He's
     an OK guy, and perhaps he is the kind of fresh blood we can use
     in that position.

     Of course, we win no matter who is chosen. That's the best news
     in this field.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 3                    4 Feb 1991


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

                           Who Runs the Show?
                           ------------------

                            by Glen Johnson
                         NJ Net 269 Coordinator


     It's a beautiful  Sunday  morning  here  in  NJ,  and  because
     there ain't no football on TV anymore, I decided to  sit  down
     at the tube and read the SYSOP conference. Well, actually, the
     Pro  Bowl  is  on  today,  but  that  ain't  really  football.
     Especially when you have a guy like  Jeff  Hostetler,  the  NY
     Giants' backup quarterback that guided the Giants to, and won,
     the Super Bowl, who doesn't even get to GO to the Pro Bowl  as
     a BACKUP, but that's a story for another day....

     I happened across a message  from  Martin  Pollard,  1:120/187
     that lit my fuse, and I wanted to address that  message  here.
     Actually, whenever I see this topic come up, it lights my fuse
     :)

     Here is what Martin said, asking about the  upcoming  vote  on
     WorldPol:


     "Here's the $64,000  question:  Are  us  lowly,  grunt  SysOps
     going to be able to vote on it, or  will  it  be  yet  another
     "aristocracy" vote? If it's the latter, then why the hell  are
     we even bothering in the first place? (The more  I  read,  the
     more I'm dismayed at the fact that ordinary nodes  don't  seem
     to have much voice in this network...) "


     As far as I can tell, Martin  doesn't  hold  any  position  of
     "authority" in Fidonet. He's "just" a regular guy. And regular
     guys in Fidonet have absolutely no control over who  runs  the
     network, or how it develops. The fact is, that Fidonet  Sysops
     have no vote. As a matter of fact, NOONE in Fidonet has a vote
     on anything. EVERYTHING that happens in Fidonet, according  to
     Policy 4, is dictated from the top down. The *C  structure  in
     Fidonet makes ALL the decisions for the "regular guys".

     Of course, noone seems to pay any attention to the  fact  that
     if there were no "regular guys", there'd be NO FIDONET.

     There has been megabytes of talk over  the  last  year  or  so
     about Fidonet moving toward a more democratic  structure.  But
     talk is cheap folks. Some nets,  even  some  regions,  conduct
     elections for NC, RC, or whatever, and that practice tends  to
     pacify the "regular guys" . They feel secure in the fact  that
     they, through their vote, have had a say in the network.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 4                    4 Feb 1991


     Make no mistake about it, elections  are  a  good  thing.  But
     they are, in fact, USELESS unless they are REQUIRED. You  vote
     for your NC (if you CAN vote for  your  NC)  because  your  NC
     FEELS that you should have a vote and your RC  FEELS  that  he
     should honor and recognize the election. But  you  know  what?
     They don't HAVE to. When your net elects an  NC,  your  RC  is
     prefectly entitled to say "No, I don't like him. Elect someone
     ELSE" or "No, I don't like him. THIS guy will be  your  NC"  .
     You might say that that  would  never  happen,  and  maybe  it
     wouldn't. But the next time you vote for your NC,  just  don't
     forget that Fidonet policy does NOT provide for  the  election
     of anyone. Your NC is APPOINTED by the  RC,  period.  Your  NC
     serves as long as the RC wants him to. Your vote means NOTHING
     unless the *C structure about you WANTS it to. And that  IS  a

     Here's  a  good  example.  A  while  back,  Matt  Whelan,  the
     International Coordinator, made GatePol the law of  the  land.
     He did it, because he is the IC,  and  he  CAN  do  that.  Now
     suppose 6000 of the 7000 nodes  in  Fidonet  didn't  like  the
     policy and didn't want to do what it says? You know  what  the
     answer is?

     The answer is TOUGH  SH*T.

     It is policy, it is binding and it IS in  effect  because  the
     IC SAID SO. You don't  HAVE  to  like  it,  and  you  have  no
     recourse under policy. You will abide by that document because
     the IC said its in effect  .  How  YOU  feel  about  it  means
     nothing. You have no say. Pretty crazy, isn't it?

     I am an elected NC, nearing the  end  of  my  second  one-year
     term. If I choose to run for reelection, and am  defeated,  my
     net WILL have a new NC, because I WILL resign. But that's  ME,
     folks. The point I'm trying to get across to everyone is  that
     I don't HAVE to resign. I don't even have to run an  election.
     I can serve as the net coordinator for net 269 until I die  or
     until the RC kicks me out. I conduct an election  in  net  269
     every year because it is the BEST I can do for the members  of
     our net. I WANT them to feel that they have a say. I WANT them
     to participate. But the FACT is, that  my  successor  may  NOT
     feel that way, and  the  annual  election  in  net  269  could
     INSTANTLY become a distant memory because Fidonet policy  does
     NOT provide sysops with  the  right  to  vote  for  anyone  or
     anything.

     Now, I feel  like  I  should  close  this  article  by  saying
     something profound like "We need to change Policy 4 right  now
     to give sysops the right to vote ". But guess  what?  "Regular
     Guys" can't even do THAT!  Nope,  you  cannot  change  policy.
     Again, you have no say.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 5                    4 Feb 1991


     I'll concede to the argument that in  many  cases,  it  simply
     is not practical to conduct a network wide  vote  and  collect
     7000 votes. If that's the way ALL votes were done, progress in
     Fidonet would be pretty damn slow. Given that, there's nothing
     wrong with collecting votes from NCs. Notice I said  NCs,  not
     RCs. I'll explain why in a moment. But when your NC  is  asked
     to vote on something, he should  be  REQUIRED  by  policy,  to
     conduct a vote of the membership of his net, and  be  REQUIRED
     by policy, to cast HIS vote according to the results  of  that
     net-wide vote. And of course, policy should dictate that  that
     NC be elected by the rank and file of the net he serves.

     The  reason  I  say  that  representative   elections   should
     include only NCs is because NCs represent the people.  If  the
     RC voted too, who would he be representing? The representative
     who represents the people? Your voice as  a  sysop  would  get
     reduced to a whisper real quick if we did that.

     What I DO urge you to do, is send a  netmail  to  your  Region
     Coordinator,   Zone   Coordinator,   and   the   International
     Coordinator, and tell them ALL that you want all  coordinators
     to be elected by the level below, and you want  procedures  in
     place to recall coordinators in  office.  AND  that  you  want
     finite terms of office for all coordinators.

     Of course, some coordinators might deem it a  dangerous  thing
     if sysops could vote, because some of them  might  LOSE  THEIR
     JOBS. But you know what?

     TOUGH SH*T.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 6                    4 Feb 1991


     Tony Davis
     Fidonet 1:147/100

     The following is my response to the questions asked by the ZC
     of candidates in the ZEC Election. I have attempted to answer
     all the requested questions, and have also attempted to not be
     vague in my answers. They have been answered in my normal
     tactful manner (A standing joke in R19 is that I have the tact
     of a Mack Truck, speeding down a steep hill, with defective
     brakes).  My answers are not meant to offend anyone, but since
     I have answered specific questions asked of me about procedures
     either now in place, or proposed to be adopted, I am sure that
     some will be offended.  To the sysops I offend, I apologize.
     But please understand, just as you may feel strongly on an
     issue, so do I; and it is the issues we are discussing, not
     personalities.


     1> What are your qualifications? What FTN positions have you
     held?

       A> A member of Fidonet since 1985
       B> Former NEC 147 & Net 147 Echomail Hub (Appointed)
       C> Former Region 19 Echomail Hub (Appointed)
       D> Former Backbone Star (Appointed)
       E> Former IFNA Board of Directors (Appointed Once, Elected
          Once)
       F> Former Inter-Network Netmail & Echomail Gate (Appointed)
       G> Current RC 19 (Elected Twice)
       H> Current Fidonet Domain Gate Help Node & Operational Domain
          Gate (Appointed)

     I have not, at any time, held any position in any other network
     besides Fidonet.

     2> If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently held
     FTN positions?

     No, I would honor the "suggestions" of Policy4, and would not
     wear "Dual Hats". I would resign the RC19 position that I now
     currently hold.

     3> What changes, if any would you make to the Backbone?

     The Fidonet Backbone is an extremely well run, organized
     entity.  My only concern in its present configuration is its
     dependence on one man and one system. We all have seen the
     destruction to Fidonet that can happen when one central point
     just disappears, as when the original Midwest Star vaporized. I
     believe there should be three stars, with each region having
     two connections to the stars (each of these connections to a
     different star). I believe the stars should not act as a
     regional hubs. I also believe that the ZEC should not be one of
     the stars.  The ZEC needs to be able to sit back and look at
     the overall backbone operation, and not be influenced as to how
     any decision that he makes would effect his own system.  The
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 7                    4 Feb 1991


     RECs should also not be stars due to the fact that they could
     be influenced by their own region's distribution, rather than
     having the best interest of Fidonet, as a whole, as their
     primary function.

     4> How do you feel about Echo Policy? What modifications, if
     any would you like to see made to it?

     Fidonet has had restrictive policies in place too long, and
     adding this document would just be a continuation of the "NO!"
     attitude Fidonet has practiced, rather then the "Why Not?"
     attitude it needs to have.

     As for modifications, I believe the document has too many flaws
     to be salvaged.

     The argument normally used, is that it is better then no
     document, and we can change it later. This is the same argument
     used in the adoption of Policy4. No changes have been made to
     Policy4, and if this document is put into effect, I would not
     expect to see the trend change. If we allow a flawed document
     to be put in place, we will have to live with it.

     I would not like to see another all encompassing Echomail
     document. The operation of the echomail distribution chain is
     much to diverse. The capabilities of a NEC in a 3 node net with
     no cost sharing plan can not even closely relate to the
     capabilities of a NEC is a 100 node net with cost sharing in
     place. The responsibility of the next step, a REC responsible
     for distribution to 800+ node region are again totally
     different. Then the next link in the chain, the stars, have to
     operate in yet another different mode. A single set of rules
     can not apply to all in any equatable manner.

     I would support (and help create) a backbone policy that
     covered the ZEC, the Stars and the RECs (only in their
     relationship to backbone operation). As for the RECs and NECs
     in their local distribution methods, those procedures should be
     decided locally. No universal policy can cover their needs, for
     all their needs are different.

     5> How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications
     if any,  would you like to see made to it?

     This document makes the October 21 Version of Echopol look
     good.  I have never seen a written document so one sided since
     Fidonet began. It is written as if Fidonet was "King" and every
     other network in existence is a "peon" that is supposed to bow
     in Fidonet's presence. Fidonet needs to work with other
     networks to remove the red tape currently in place for
     inter-network communications.  There are enough technical
     problems concerning communications between networks that use
     different addressing methods that we don't need the political
     problems that mis-guided policies add to these difficulties.
     The domain technology now being implemented is an example of
     how this can be avoided.  It needs no formal agreements, just a
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 8                    4 Feb 1991


     single sysop (or as many as are willing) operating a gate and
     running a program to convert the messages to the receiving
     networks addressing format.

     Since the Gateway Document was placed in effect by the IC, I
     will follow it (at least until someone convinces Matt how
     ridicules it is), but I do not like it, and wish it would just
     go away; just as I wish all restrictions of communications
     between networks would go away.

     6> How do you see the relationship between the *ECs and the
     *Cs?

     I see very little relationship between the two. The functions
     of their jobs are very different. A *C needs as his primary
     strength the ability to deal with people. A *EC needs as his
     primary strength a solid technical ability in order to deal
     with the technical needs of distribution.

     The two organizations are different and separate, and should
     stay that way.

     7> How do you see the relationship between the *ECs and
     Moderators?

     The moderators "own" the echos, the *ECs transport them. If we
     can remove the *ECs from having any say in the selection of the
     moderators, and remove *ECs from having any say or control
     concerning the content of the echos; there will be no need for
     the relationship between the two groups to be any more than the
     relationship each of us presently has with the guy that
     delivers the Snail Mail to our home; *ECs are mailmen, not
     policemen.

     8> How do you feel about new technology (Groupmail, routed
     netmail, domains, EMSI, etc.,)?

     GroupMail:

     Groupmail technology is presently the best available technology
     for shared conferences between networks, since it does not make
     use of origin lines, paths, or seen-bys. I would hope that the
     Fidonet would begin a more widespread usage of the technology,
     especially in the conferences that we share with other
     networks.

     Domains:

     Since I operate as the Fidonet Domain Gate Help node, I would
     assume that my feelings on this question would be obvious.
     Domains are the next step in the future of FTN networks.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 9                    4 Feb 1991


     Routed Netmail:

     Since R19 was one of the first regions to implement routed
     netmail along the echo distribution channels  while I was
     acting as both RC19 and R19 Distribution Hub, I assume that my
     answer is also obvious. I am all for it, when used for low
     priority netmail. The routing scheme was not designed to
     replace Crash Netmail, just to supply an alternative way to
     communicate.

     EMSI:

     This technology allows great advantages when, as present,
     sysops are using so many different node numbers to operate in
     different networks simultaneously. As Domain addressing becomes
     more dominant the need for EMSI will become less. It is not
     that I do not like EMSI, it is that I feel it is a band-aid for
     a problem that needs a lot more then a band-aid.

     In the past 6 years, the most enjoyment I have had, has been
     implementing the new technologies that our developers have
     given us. Without the ever changing technologies, Fidonet would
     have crashed long ago. It is the new technologies that allow
     our continued growth.

     9> What goals would you set as ZEC?

        1> De-centralization of the backbone; with in-place disaster
           recovery methods.
        2> Make it easier for new echos to be placed on the backbone
        3> Removal of the *EC structure from ALL policy enforcement
           or policy interpretation.
        4> Education of all Cs concerning the damage the current
           "curmudgeon" mode of thinking and operation is doing to
           our ability to communicate.
        5> Implementation of new technologies as they are available.
        6> Working with other networks to facilitate communications
           between Fidonet and the rest of the world.

     From my statements above, I would hope that all readers of this
     questionnaire would realize that I believe that Fidonet is
     being policed to death. This is a network that was started to
     allow communications. We need to get back to that main premise,
     not the never-ending policies that keep coming up to hinder
     communications.

      We started with:

                   Do not be excessively Annoying.
                   Do not be too easily Annoyed.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 10                   4 Feb 1991


     These are the only rules that matter, the rest are restrictions
     that we just don't need.

     10> Any other comments?

     I would like to thank the RECs for selecting me as a candidate.
     Win, Lose, or Draw, just being a candidate is an honor.

     If elected, I would do my best. And if not elected, I will
     support whichever candidate that is selected.  I feel all of
     them could, and would be a credit to this hobby.

     The main assets that I would bring to the job are:

       1> A track record of Fidonet involvement.
       2> A track record of proven technical ability.
       3> A track record of Democratic operation.

     I was the first RC in Zone 1 to be elected by a general
     election vote open to all sysops in the nodelist. To the best
     of my knowledge, I am the only RC in Zone 1 that has been
     democratically reelected to a second term; I also implemented
     the first general election for a REC. Region 19 is only region
     in Zone 1 where both the RC and REC have been elected by a one
     sysop - one vote general election.  I am proud that I was able
     to give each sysop a strong voice in R19, and hopefully I will
     be able to carry on these democratic principals to more Fidonet
     areas nationwide.

     Respectfully,

     Tony Davis
     RC19



     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 11                   4 Feb 1991


     Amnon Nissan, REC18.   ZEC candidate questionnaire

      Well, here I go again, answering one more questionnaire :-)
      I will try my best.

     1) What are your qualifications?  What FTN positions have you
        held?

     I have been REC for region18 for the last two+ years.  Befor
     that I was involved with the PCP distribution system.  I was
     NC of net 158, NEC for net  151, and am the HUB for the Raleigh
     portion of net 151.

     2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held
        FTN positions?

     I will not continue being REC, I already called for elections in
     the region, in which I am not a candidate (has nothing to do
     with the ZEC elections, just a promiss I made the region last
     year).  I will continue being the HUB for Raleigh, yes.

     3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars,
        Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)?

     I would like to add more regional/national HUBs, and whould like
     to see an orderly fasion in which echos will be exchanged
     between ZONE1 and other ZONEs/Networks.  Alternate distribution
     systems should be developed, to sattisfy the ever growing demand
     of echomail.  I would like to see the ZEC not involved as a STAR,
     and devote his\her time to answering mail and educating those
     who seek to know more.

     4) How do you feel about Echo Policy?  What modifications, if
        any, would you like to see made to it?

     The list is too long.  In general, I would like to separate the
     *EC duties and the moderator duties.  *EC should have no say in
     the way a moderator moderates her/his echo.  I would like to
     take all references which suggest enforcement over moderators,
     out of it completely, and turn it into a backbone policy, where
     it will only address the technical points of distribution.  But
     again, that should be done by the net as a whole, and not a one
     person opinion forced on others.

     5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy?  What modifications,
        if any, would you like to see made to it?

        Frankly, it is not my idea of a policy.

     6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs?

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 12                   4 Feb 1991


     I always had good relations with the *C structure (well....
     almost always).    We -- the *EC structure -- should not tell
     them how to run the net, and they in turn should not tell us how
     to distribute echomail.  I know there are clashes between NECs
     and NCs here and there, and there will always be some, but
     talking it out and educating those involved, always seem to solve
     the problem.

     7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators?

     Again, they should be separated.  I see no problem with
     developing relationships between the two bodies (makes good
     working relations), but we cannot/should_not force them to do one
     thing or another.  I found most moderators will listen if I
     listen, and we could always work out a good solution which will
     not leave either of us with a bad feeling towards the other.
     (And I know how one feels and what one does, when cornered :-)

     8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net
        mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)?

     Any new technology should be encouraged.  Groupmail is great,
     but it will take a complete revolution to implement it in Fidonet
     right now.  I routed netmail from day one, and all for it.
     Domains are the up and coming thing, and that is one thing that
     I beleive will help communications between the different
     networks.  I have no comment about emsi and etc. :-)

     9) What goals would you set as ZEC?

     To better the flow of echomail, to make the flow more efficient,
     and to develope the trust of the net in the backbone and the *EC
     structure.

     10) Any other comments?

       Vote for me :-)

     Shalom Y'all
     Amnon Nissan, REC18


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 13                   4 Feb 1991


     Dean Lachan  1:124/4115

                 Zone 1 EC Election Questionaire Response

     1) What are your qualifications?
        What FTN positions have you held?

     I am currently NEC for Net 124. Echomail distribution was
     becoming impossible. By breaking up the setup into HUBS,
     and distributing the load among the HUBs, the mail moved,
     efficiently. This same setup was placed into use for the
     Region 19 SDS. I am currently a Regional Hub for Region 19.

     2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held
        FTN positions?

     I would pass on the job of R19SDS Coord and would evaluate the
     NEC position, since it has become mainly a mail-moving position.

     3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars,
        Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)?

     The same changes that are currently being looked at being done
     now. Break the system up into HUBs for backup redundancy and
     efficiency.

     4) How do you feel about Echo Policy?  What modifications, if
        any, would you like to see made to it?

     I feel it needs work. I feel the 'backbone' needs their own
     defined document as to the movement of mail. How to deal with
     Dupes, creating areas, deleting areas, etc. As for telling
     individual nets how to run their nets, that belongs in the
     Nets own policies. If the Net has no policies, then maybe they
     don't need one - but personally believe each net should have
     their own guidelines on how to interface with the world
     outside of their net.

     Current Echo Policy is more 'do this and don't do that' rather
     than being a descriptive document about what echomail
     distribution is all about.

     5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy? What modifications,
        if any, would you like to see made to it?

     Don't feel anything about it. Should I?

     6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs?

     I see that in our area, they work fine. They should remain
     seperate. The *EC tends to be more technical in nature, while
     the *C tends to lean towards the people aspect. However, it
     should be noted that their is a mixture in both positions.
     Both should be able to work with the others.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 14                   4 Feb 1991


     7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators?

     *ECs move and coordinate echomail areas. Moderators coordinate
     the individual echomail areas they moderate.

     8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net
        mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)?

     Great. If it works and people are willing to work with it, then
     go for it. If it shuts out folks, then it needs to be reworked.

     9) What goals would you set as ZEC?

     - Define Echomail Technical Document for Backbone distribution
     - Define and Setup Regional Hubs and their distribution for
       backup redundancy and efficiency.
     - Work on better exchange of echomail from Domain-Domain and
       Network-Networks.

     10) Any other comments?

     If selected, I'll do the best I can do. I won't promise that
     people will always be happy, or that everyone will be happy,
     because they will not.

     Take Care, Dean.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 15                   4 Feb 1991


     Butch Walker
     1:157/3

             The following are my responses to the questionnaire that
     George Peace sent out to the candidates for the ZEC 1 position.

             I'll be glad to answer any specific questions either in
     the Z1_ELECTION conference or via netmail.  I will only respond
     to questions directed to me.  I won't be debating other
     candidates nor commenting on their positions.  I will answer
     questions as they relate to my position on issues.

             Butch Walker 1:157/3



     1) What are your qualifications?  What FTN positions have you
        held?

             I am one of the founders of the Backbone and one of the
     first Sysops outside of Dallas to use echomail.  I founded Net
     161 in Region 10, was the first NC of 161 (from 1986 through
     1989), spun off Net's 203, 205, & 208, appointed the first female
     NC in Fidonet, and served as NEC of 161 during the same time
     period.

             I was the first REC of Region 10, and the first
     'official' ZEC of Zone 1 (Jon Sabol preceded me before the
     echomail coordinator positions were officially recognized).
     Until the spring of '89 I was the NorCal Star feeding the Nets in
     Northern California, Regions 14, 17 & 19, Hawaii, part of the
     U.K., and Malaysia.

             I currently moderate 15 echomail conferences.


     2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held
        FTN positions?

             I have no current FidoNet positions.  I do act as an
     echomail hub for the Cleveland hub of Net 157 and would continue
     to do so.


     3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars,
        Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)?

             I would encourage the 'Backbone' to come up with a
     Backbone policy that applies to all conferences distributed via
     that channel.  Any moderator of a conference not agreeing with
     the policy should then remove their conference from the backbone
     and take it to private distribution or another "backbone'.  I
     would also encourage the backbone to find additional Regional
     distribution systems, to reduce the current bottleneck.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 16                   4 Feb 1991


             By encouraging alternative distribution systems and
     increasing regional outlets traffic flow could be improved.  Let
     me say however, that 'cross distribution' must be coordinated.  A
     conference should only be available on one distribution system
     unless there is a great deal of communication to reduce the
     possibility of dupes, and should not be on any distribution
     system without some type of communicated agreement between the
     moderator and the distribution system.



     4) How do you feel about Echo Policy?  What modifications, if
        any, would you like to see made to it?

             I would move to separate the policy into two separate
     documents.  One document would be specific to 'Backbone'
     distribution.  The second would be a smaller, more general
     document establishing very limited guidelines.  Those guidelines
     would be established by a committee representing the various
     distribution systems within FidoNet and moderators.

             For example, distribution specific policies would address
     the questions of when a conference would be dropped from
     distribution, how moderators are to be succeeded, how users or
     systems are to be dropped if requested by the moderator, etc.

             The FidoNet Zone 1 policy would then be a policy of
     coordination between distribution systems, inter-regional and
     inter-zonal coordination.


     5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy?  What modifications,
        if any, would you like to see made to it?

             Gateway Policy should cover netmail.  The ZEC should work
     out arrangements with other zones that suit the individual needs
     of the parties involved.  The ZEC should also encourage software
     developers to either start supporting zones
     (tossers/scanners/packers/mailers/readers) or move toward
     domains.  Other Zones/Domains are now a fact of life and the
     exchange of information between them should be encouraged.



     6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs?

             I may be spoiled, but I have never seen a problem between
     the ?EC's and ?C's.  We certainly had none in Region 10 (at least
     the Northern half) and I have only seen cooperation in Net 157.
     I guess there are some problems in some nets or regions (and
     certainly there was in Region 18 for a time).  I guess my answer
     is that I see them as equal but separate.  They should work
     together to simplify life, not make it more difficult.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 17                   4 Feb 1991


     7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators?

             If the distribution portion of policy is removed from
     FidoNet Zone 1 Echomail Policy then I see very little
     relationship between the *EC's and the Moderators.  I would only
     see them become involved if a dispute could not be settled
     between the moderator and the distribution system, or if both the
     moderator and the distribution system requested their assistance
     in dealing with another distribution system or Sysop/user.


     8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net
        mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)?

             New technology should be pursued and encouraged.  After
     all Scanmail and Tossmail were new technology in 1986.  The
     backbone was new technology, Arcmail, Confmail, QMail, Areafix,
     etc. were all new technology at some point.



     9) What goals would you set as ZEC?

             1) Remove the ZEC/REC's from a specific distribution
     system.  That's not to say that cannot continue to operate as a
     Star or regional distribution system for the 'Backbone', but to
     move the *EC more to a coordination position and less of a
     distribution position.

             2) To promote alternative distribution systems within
     FidoNet Zone 1.

             3) To promote information exchange between Zones, whether
     the Zone is part of FidoNet or any other Net.

             4) As part of the above, the splitting of 'EchoPol' into
     separate pieces.  One distribution specific (each distribution
     system would have their own), and one limited umbrella Zone 1
     policy.


     10) Any other comments?

             I am not really campaigning for the position.  If elected
     I'll do the job to the best of my ability.  If not elected, I
     won't lose a minute of sleep.

             I'm only human.  I make mistakes, I over react sometimes
     and probably under react at times as well.  I've made decisions
     in the past that were unpopular with some, but I believe that
     under the set of circumstances at the time, they were the best
     of the available alternatives.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 18                   4 Feb 1991


             The other candidates ( Tony, John, Dean & Amnon) are all
     qualified, have experience, are dependable.  All have made
     contributions to FidoNet over the years.  Either way you go
     folks, you should end up with a quality ZEC.  It's just a matter
     of what direction you think the position should go.


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 19                   4 Feb 1991


                  Censoring news in the 'Information Age'

                             By Randy Edwards
                             Sysop, 1:141/552

        I had heard a lot of stories about the U.S. government
     censoring our media during the recent Middle East crisis and
     following the attack on Iraq and the start of the war.
     Strangely, I never heard the media complaining much about it.

        It never dawned on me as to how much our government was
     censoring *MY* news until I saw an discussion on CNN with one
     of my favorite reporters, Bill Moyers.

        During that interview Bill Moyers told of a reporter in the
     Middle East who reported for the Detroit Free Press newspaper.
     The reporter wrote a story that told about U.S. pilots
     returning from a bombing mission over Iraq.

        The reporter used the word "giddily" to describe the pilots
     when they returned alive from the mission.  The reporter
     specifically wrote "The pilots giddily slapped each other on
     the back" after the successful mission.

        That was enough for the Pentagon censors to go into action.

        The Pentagon censored the story, replacing the single word
     "giddily" with "proudly" -- as in, "The pilots proudly slapped
     each other on the back."  Our pilots don't giddily slap each
     others backs after a bombing mission it seems -- they proudly
     slap each others backs.

        I began to think that if the Pentagon is censoring the news
     to include things like a single adjective, what ELSE are they
     censoring or not telling us?!

        I've found some startling information.  Here's a sample:

        * Members of the German Parliament and retired German Air
     Force Generals have stated they have reliable sources indicating
     between 100,000 and 300,000 Iraqis have been killed since
     George Bush ordered the bombing attacks on Iraq.

        * The report of the Iraqi helicopters defecting to Saudi
     Arabia before the war was actually a military psychological
     disinformation campaign designed to convince other Iraqis to
     defect.  The media got wind of this propaganda and reported it
     in the U.S. as fact.

        * There have been reports of armed clashes between Western
     and Moslem "coalition" forces fighting amongst themselves, with
     many deaths resulting from the fighting.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 20                   4 Feb 1991


        * Large anti-war protests and demonstrations are occuring
     worldwide in many, many countries and on a huge scale.

        Despite my own political views on the war (as a veteran, I'm
     very much anti-war/pro-peace) I find censorship by our (or any)
     government disgusting at best.

        In the so-called "information age" it seems we should have a
     higher standard than to allow the military to censor our civil
     news media.  And I would hope the media would scream long and
     loudly about any imposition of censorship.  But this hasn't
     happened.  Opposition to the Pentagon censorship is not coming
     from ABC, CBS or AP or UPI, but instead it is coming in the
     form of a lawsuit by several small alternative news
     publications.

        Our military is not censoring the media for military security
     purposes -- but instead for propaganda purposes.

        I'm quite sure that the Iraqis would not have found much
     military intelligence value in the Detroit "Free" Press'
     reporting about pilots "giddily" slapping each other.  But this
     is the extent of the censorship of our news by the Pentagon, in
     addition to our media's own tendency towards self-censorship.

        It is during repressive times like this where one can see
     how vital things like the FidoNet are.  The FidoNet was founded
     to allow EASIER communciation between people -- and it does.

        I read several news-oriented echomail conferences where
     information flows freely -- the only restriction on the
     conferences are the individual conference moderator and the
     individual BBS's Sysop.

        I've read many uncensored reports from other nation's
     shortwave radio stations that appear in the FidoNet routinely.
     These news reports are uncensored by the U.S. government and
     they tend to put the responsibility of the information on where
     it belongs -- on the individual organization reporting the news,
     and most importantly, on the individual person reading the news.

        Pat yourself quickly on the back FidoNet -- and in
     particular all the people working to disseminate alternative
     news and information -- and then start wondering ... how long
     will it be before our "big brother" decides that we're too big
     for our own good?


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 21                   4 Feb 1991


     John Roberts
     1:385/49@fidonet
     1:1091/0@starnet
     7:49/2004@alternet

                     ZEC Questionnaire - John Roberts

     Before I get into answering the questions, I'd like to say a few
     words.  You see, when I was asked if I'd consider running for
     Zone 1 EchoMail Coordinator, I wasn't quite sure how to reply.

     I was remembering when I used to operate an echomail hub system -
     remembering all the nights of sitting up watching the machine to
     make sure the mail went through, and all the hours put in
     changing hardware and software to speed the system up and make
     things process faster, or better, or for any number of other
     reasons.  I'm sure that those of you who operate hub systems, and
     especially those of you who did so before the technology got as
     reliable as it is these days, know exactly what I'm talking
     about.  I'll be completely honest and tell you I don't miss that
     part at all.

     However, it only took a few minutes for me to realize that the
     function of the ZEC isn't to operate the largest hub system in
     the Zone.  Rather, it's to help coordinate the operation of the
     distribution system, with the goal of getting the mail around in
     as effective and efficient a manner as possible.  And, also
     completely honestly, that was the part I enjoyed, and that's the
     reason I agreed to the nomination.

     So, that said - on with the questions.  Since they're fairly
     general, and since a lot of people are paying to carry this
     around, I'm not going into real detail.  I'll be happy to answer
     any direct questions in more detail in the Z1_ELECTION
     conference.

     1) What are your qualifications?  What FTN positions have you
        held?

        Qualifications - that's a bit tough, since as far as I know
        there's no real, concrete definition of what the function of a
        Zone Echomail Coordinator is.  However, going with my previous
        statement (that it's to help coordinate the operation of the
        distribution system with the goal of getting the mail around
        in as effective and efficient a manner as possible), I'll make
        a stab at it.

        First, it requires a certain intimacy with the mechanisms
        involved.  I believe I have that part, based on experience
        which I'll cover in a minute.  It also needs more than a
        little objectivity and the ability to see issues and problems
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 22                   4 Feb 1991


        from more than one perspective.  It's been my observation that
        most of the folks who move lots of mail don't do it for the
        high wages, glory, or esteem from others.  In general, they do
        it because they want to.  To devote the kind of time, effort,
        and expense that's required, a person really has to love what
        they're doing.  This isn't a bad thing - quite the contrary.
        But I feel that it can have a tendency to cloud some of the
        perspective - the ability to stand back at a distance and
        observe a situation from another viewpoint - and make it
        difficult to maintain the necessary objectivity.  Some of you
        may have wondered what I'm even doing on the ballot, since I'm
        not an REC, and don't operate a hub system.  But I believe
        that it's precisely for that reason that I can provide some
        additional balance to the position simply by not being so
        intimately involved in the daily "nuts and bolts" part of the
        operation.  Oh - and yes, I do answer my netmail.

        As for experience - I've held FidoNet NC, NEC, and REC
        positions at various times in the past few years, was part of
        the SDN system in its early stages, and operated net and
        regional echomail hub systems for some time as well.  I've
        operated netmail and echomail gateways between FidoNet and
        other FTN's, between EchoMail and GroupMail technologies, and
        between Domains.

     2) If elected ZEC, would you continue with other currently-held
        FTN positions?

        While I currently hold no position within FidoNet, I'd have to
        answer the question with the qualification that it would
        depend on what the other position(s) were, and whether there
        would be any likelihood of conflict between the functions of
        the positions.  For instance, I don't feel that it's
        appropriate for an individual to hold ?C and ?EC positions
        within the same network.  I do hold positions in FTN's other
        than FidoNet.  However, my personal feeling is that since the
        ZEC position is a FidoNet responsibility, and that the
        majority (if not all) of the alternative networks are
        independent entities, it's not actually important at the
        present time.

        However, to go on record - should there come a time when there
        would develop a conflict of interest, or more importantly, a
        negative impact on either FidoNet or any of the other FTN's of
        which I may be a part at the time, then I would remove myself
        from that conflict or impact by whatever means was most
        appropriate to avoiding the problem, including resigning from
        whatever position(s) necessary.  This includes resigning the
        ZEC position, should I be elected and should that appear to be
        the most beneficial course of action in the case such
        conflicts were to develop.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 23                   4 Feb 1991


     3) What changes, if any, would you make to the Backbone (Stars,
        Regional Hubs, feeds to other Zones, etc.)?

        I'm a strong proponent of the "if it ain't broke, don't fix
        it" philosophy.  I don't believe in change strictly for the
        sake of change, so I'd have to answer this question with
        others - such as asking what doesn't work, and what needs to
        be done to fix it?  In any case, any such changes shouldn't be
        done unilaterally by a single individual.  They should be
        discussed at length and agreed upon by at least all the major
        participants, with opportunity for comments from everyone that
        may be affected by any such changes.

     4) How do you feel about Echo Policy?  What modifications, if
        any, would you like to see made to it?

        I feel that basically it's a good document - at least, the
        original draft.  There are certainly some details that need to
        be worked out, especially in the area of definitions of terms.
        There needs to be some work in the area of intention - whether
        it's to be an operational document for the distribution of
        EchoMail, primarily for the use of the backbone, or whether
        it's intended to be an all-encompassing policy that covers all
        aspects of EchoMail.  Either way, I believe certain things
        such as the authority of conference moderators, the rights of
        conference participants, and more specific guidelines on how
        to have conferences added to and removed from the backbone
        should be addressed - whether in the general EchoMail Policy
        or elsewhere.

        As for the current drafts for a new version, I'm unable to
        comment on them directly as I haven't been in direct
        communication with those working on them.  I see things I
        like, and I see things I don't like.  However, there are some
        ambiguous passages that I'd like to have a better
        understanding of the intent of, preferably through direct
        discussion with those who authored them, before I comment or
        make any suggestions for modification that could be considered
        either supportive or negative.

     5) How do you feel about the Gateway Policy?  What modifications,
        if any, would you like to see made to it?

        As with the Echo Policy document, I feel like it's essentially
        good, but needs work on the details.  There are some
        ambiguities in it which, again, may be able to be rectified
        simply through more detailed definition of certain terms used
        within the document.  I'm not completely comfortable with a
        few of its provisions, but I understand some of the reasons
        that led the authors to believe they were necessary.  However,
        I feel that in some cases the result is that of making the
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 24                   4 Feb 1991


        "symptoms" go unnoticed without any real impact on the actual
        causes of the problems.  I could wish for a bit more
        flexibility to be built in, but I really have no concrete
        suggestions on how it could be done within the current
        document.  It's quite possible that any fix would require a
        more extensive rework than is initially evident.

     6) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and *Cs?

        I believe that it has to be something of a peer relationship,
        with a good deal of symbiosis.  The *EC's need to have the
        support of the *C's, and the *C's need to be able to trust the
        judgment of the *EC's, all the way up and down the chain.  In
        an ideal world, conflicts would never arise - but we just
        don't live in an ideal world.  It's in the cases of those
        conflicts where the *EC's and *C's have to be able to work
        together.  I think, in general, that the system as established
        works pretty well - but with as many people involved as are,
        there are bound to be occasional disagreements and disputes -
        personality clashes, as it were.  It's for these cases that we
        may perhaps need to define this relationship in more concrete
        terms than has been done previously - be it in Policy, Echo
        Policy, or just in some sort of overall gentlemen's
        (gentlefolk's?) agreement.

     7) How do you see the relationship between *ECs and Moderators?

        I'm concerned about this one.  While things generally seem to
        work pretty well most of the time, we really have no assurance
        built into the system to avoid capricious decisions and
        possible abuses.  I think that the *EC's have to support the
        Moderators in cases of clear cut abuse.  I also believe that
        there has to be some sort of mechanism for protecting the
        conference participants from abuse of the system by a given
        Moderator.  I'm sure that there's some definable, workable
        middle ground - it's just that we haven't really stumbled
        across the words to delineate these authorities (and
        responsibilities) just yet.

        What I mean in this answer and the one previous is not that
        the ?EC structure should necessarily have any direct
        administrative control over FidoNet itself - that is the job of
        the ?C structure.  What I'm speaking of here is coordination
        within the ?EC structure itself, as concerns cooperation with
        moderators.  For instance, should links to a given system be
        removed for cause, it should be the responsibility of the
        rest of the ?EC structure to attempt to ensure that those
        links not be reestablished via some other routing.  If they
        are reestablished, and the problem persists, then it should
        be handed off to the ?C structure for any further action, and
        the ?C structure should be willing to work with the ?EC
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 25                   4 Feb 1991


        structure to accomplish the desired result - that of
        eliminating the problem, whatever it may be or whatever
        actions may ultimately become necessary.

     8) How do you feel about new technology (groupmail, routed net
        mail, domains, EMSI, etc.)?

        New technology is wonderful - as long as we're careful not to
        break what we already have.  FidoNet is large enough that what
        may appear to be relatively minor changes can have serious
        effects on a significant number of people.  While this is
        primarily within the realm of the FTSC, it's important to
        maintain backward compatibility.  On the other hand, when new
        and beneficial capabilities come along, it's important that we
        get the word out and provide some sort of positive
        encouragement for the adoption of those changes.  I'd have to
        say that my general opinion on the introduction of new
        technology would be that as long as it doesn't break something
        else, by all means give it a try - at least for a reasonable
        period to find out if it really works or if it's just a bell
        or whistle that is of little use or functionality as far as
        the network as a whole is concerned.

        As an example of a "bell or whistle", some of the uses of
        ^Akludge lines come immediately to mind.  I see many echomail
        messages where the body of the text is much shorter than the
        size of the ^Akludge lines that are inserted into it.  These
        are, quite simply, costing people money to drag about, and in
        some cases I wonder about the actual usefulness of the
        information conveyed in them.  Among some of the ones that do
        appear to have valid uses, some are implemented enough
        differently from one software package to another that it
        would seem that some of their usefulness is negated as well.
        I'd like to see some sort of standardization of formats as
        well as a requirement for FTSC review as to the overall
        potential of their usefulness before too many more of these
        are unleashed on the network.

     9) What goals would you set as ZEC?

        That's another tough one.  I'm not a software author, and as I
        said earlier, don't believe in making unilateral decisions.
        I'm also realistic enough to not make bets on other folks'
        tricks.  Instead of concrete goals, let me just say that I'd
        like to see FidoNet and the use of FidoNet technology continue
        to expand, and to realize more of the potential that so many
        have been working toward for so long.  I'd like to see us
        realize more of that potential in not only the good we can do
        for ourselves and for all the FTN's, but in the benefits that
        could be realized by a truly global amateur communications
        network that's within the reach of anyone.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 26                   4 Feb 1991


        Of course, that's the "pie in the sky", or overall viewpoint.
        To be a bit more specific, I feel that there are two major
        accomplishments that need to  be worked toward: increasing the
        efficiency of distribution where possible, and decreasing
        both overall and individual costs for both distribution and
        participation.  There are others that are desirable and
        important, such as taking care that we're not legislated out
        of existence, and increasing capabilities for communications
        between FidoNet and other networks, both FTN and non-FTN.  I
        have ideas and suggestions for all of these, some of which may
        be workable, and others of which in all probability are not.
        More importantly, I'd certainly be willing to listen to and
        give serious consideration to the opinions of other people, as
        well.

     10) Any other comments?

        Just this - EchoMail, like FidoNet, isn't a one-man show, and
        should never be allowed to become one.  Should I be elected to
        fill the position of ZEC, _I_ am not going to do *anything*.
        However, with the help of all the really good people who are
        directly involved in the moving of those megabytes of mail on
        a day to day basis, and with the advice and assistance of all
        the various ?C's and ?EC's, _we_ might just be able to
        accomplish a few things that are of benefit to everyone.

     If you managed to read through all that, congratulations - you've
     got a *lot* of patience.  I won't go on much longer, but I do
     want to make some final comments.

     First, I want to thank the REC's for the serious thought and
     consideration that was obviously put into the selection of the
     other candidates, and more personally for the vote of confidence
     in including me - whether or not I'm elected, it's a pleasure to
     be considered with such a quality group of individuals.  I also
     want to thank George Peace for giving the REC's the opportunity
     to come up with the list of eligibles themselves.  Lastly, I want
     to sneak in a quick "thanks" to each of you, the FidoNet sysops,
     who have made this hobby both possible and enjoyable over the
     years.

     I've had the pleasure of working very closely with Butch and
     Tony, to a lesser extent with Dean, and though I've never met or
     spoken directly with Amnon, I've been quite aware of his efforts
     and capabilities via direct contact with others in his region.
     Any one of them certainly has the technical competence needed to
     perform the functions of a ZEC, and in my opinion, at least,
     they're also all "good people".  Though each of us has different
     views and ideas about what may be the best way to achieve it, I
     have no doubt that each of us has the ultimate goal of doing the
     best we can for the enrichment of FidoNet.  I believe that
     whomever you should elect will be reliable, responsive, and do
     his best to continue the trend established by the current and
     past ?EC's and hub operators to make things easier, more
     effective, and better for FidoNet as a whole.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 27                   4 Feb 1991


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 28                   4 Feb 1991


                    MATERIEL IMPACT RESOURCES

     The purpose of this article is to promote the development of a
     materiel management network - "MATERNET" - which is currently in
     the design phase. The network will encompass a range of echo
     conferences, for example the following are some considerations:

              GENERAL DISCUSSION (MATERIEL MANAGEMENT AFFAIRS)
              USED MEDICAL EQUIPMENT
              USED EQUIPMENT (NON MEDICAL)
              HARDWARE AND SOFTWARE ANALYSIS
              GROUP PROCUREMENT
              DISTRIBUTION
              TRANSPORTATION
              INVENTORY CONTROL
              WASTE MANAGEMENT
              ENVIRONMENTAL ISSUES
              LOGISTICS
              HEALTHCARE
              UNIVERSITIES
              MUNICIPALITIES
              SCHOOL BOARDS
              GOVERNMENT (FEDERAL, STATE, PROVINCIAL)
              CORPORATIONS
              BUYER SUPPLIER DIALOGUE

     These are only some of the echoes being considered and we hope
     with input from interested parties and in particular managers
     of materiel, we will be able to customize echoes to serve the
     needs of all potential participants.

     It is expected that this network will reach around the globe
     and allow materiel managers and other interested parties to
     communicate and share the most current state of the art
     information and data. While there are distinct and specific
     needs from country to country, there is also the potential for
     a common base of interest for all participants. For example,
     in the Canadian healthcare system, there is the Goods and
     Services Tax (GST) and the relatively new Management Information
     System (MIS) which is replacing the old Canadian Hospital
     Accounting Manual (CHAM). While these new systems may be unique
     to the Canadian environment, there maybe benefits for materiel
     managers in other countries at least to share common interests
     and needs.

     Another area of interest will be used equipment, in particular
     medical equipment which so frequently needs an outlet either for
     the third world or within another facility having the potential
     need for use. Finding meaningful outlets in the short term has
     frequently been a problem for those with a responsibility for
     disposal of such equipment. Rapid communication through the
     bulletin board process can serve to expedite the process of
     disposal.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 29                   4 Feb 1991


     We will follow up with more specific information and data as we
     progress with the development of MATERNET and in the interim
     woud appreciate hearing from any materiel managers or other
     interested parties out there in the electronic data transmission
     heartland. This is only the beginning of a project which can reap
     a multitude of benefits for materiel managers. If you would like
     to join us in this venture, please contact me and let me know
     your specific areas of interest and location. I look forward to
     hearing from all interested parties and welcome all constructive
     input.


              Herb Baldwin

              FIDONET @ 1:134/201
              DATALINE (403) 347-8214


     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 30                   4 Feb 1991


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

     Henry Clark
     1:124/6120


     While Away the Hours Dept. --

     Missed me ?  I thought not.  I can't believe my systems stayed
     up for so long without me being home to watch em.  Well, one
     quit the last week on a disk error, but it wasn't critical.  I
     was in Europe for 3 weeks and had a great time.  Primarily
     because Denmark has legalized casinos.  Naturally, we saw all
     the family extremities, and drank a lot more than normal.
     Normal is none for me.  Damn those Danes, they live hard and
     eat hard and party hard.

     I took the hefty Compaq with 100 MB of games and such.  It
     provided hours of enjoyment for everyone, because you know the
     TV is just horrible over there. Over there.  It also gave me a
     modem to use.

     After obtaining a BBS list for Denmark, I proceed to organize a
     Pizza Party for the whole of Region 23.  It was a huge affair
     which cost me no small sum, since I had promised a beer to all
     the attending sysops.  We all had a great time, and I want to
     thank Morton Joench and Stig Jacobsen for introducing me to
     Fidonet life in Denmark.  I heard a lot about Region 23 and the
     whole of Zone 2 in reference to elections and democracy in
     Fidonet, Policy complaints and just all the usual stuff that we
     get over here - and your little dog too.


     Follow the Yellow Sign with the Tank On It ? --

     What a trip home.  The family and I drove from Copenhagen to
     Frankfurt.  The speed limit in Denmark is some 100 km/h but in
     Germany, "oh look out".  From Hamburg to Frankfurt it was
     mostly foot to the floor.  Our little 1.8 liter motor was good
     for about 190 without really thrashing it.  ( For all you
     'mileage' guys, NO, I'm lazy this year and I ain't gonna
     convert for you.  )  Even at 190, you have to stay out of the
     left lane, or the occasional big BMW will run you over.  I've
     decided the best BMWs are the ones with no number on the back.

     We spent the night in Frankfurt, at one of the many empty
     apartments left by servicemen in Saudi.  This unit had 7 (
     count-em ) stories, which was OK if you liked stairs.  Those
     Germans, they work hard.  Green and white police cars...  geez.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 31                   4 Feb 1991


     The next morning we tried to get on the Frankfurt-Dallas
     flight, but it was overloaded, so we went to Chicago.  And from
     there, a packed and horrible flight to Dallas.  At least we
     flew first class, which, would be nice for all the services,
     but really only matters in that you get enough room to sleep
     all the way.


     The Great and Powerful --

     Young sysop ( and keyboard MTBF sampling device ) Kevin now
     alternates between Windows and Desqview to get his games
     played.  Yeah, Desqview, you know I make him at least try to
     keep the board up !  Actually, we have the best luck running
     Windows under a Desqview window.

     What is the fascination with Mahjong type games?  I have seen
     him run two different ones. I tell him "Duh, I found two that
     matched.  Duh-uh do it again ?"  He doesn't get it.

     He's five now, and of course, he got his first set of golf
     clubs.  He practices in the yard, and we play nine holes every
     week, so far.  I let him go from the 150 yard marker, after he
     pounded home a 23 on his first hole ( a 400 par 4 ).  He shoots
     about 10 from 150.  He has more fun than anyone else on the
     course.


     If I Only Had a Brain Dept. --

     Honey comes home from work now, not me.  She gets home late,
     she's on the phone and doesn't spend enough time with her
     family.  A workaholic.  Doesn't do a damn thing around the
     house, I have to pick up for her, throws her socks on the
     floor.  Come's home, "Where's dinner."  "This house is a
     mess."  "I work hard all day and I just want to come home and
     relax."  "That damn Bill lost the IFX-3 report."

     One day I washed all the laundry, changed the sheets, washed
     the dishes, cleaned the kitchen, washed the floors, vacuumed
     the whole house, cleaned out the fireplace, picked up Kevin's
     room ( an hour right there ), made three meals, cleaned my
     office ( two hours ! ) and fed the cat.  She comes home and
     has nothing to complain about, so she doesn't speak to me.

     And no, I ain't gonna have her find out I sent her picture in
     Fidonews. No way.

     -----------------------------------------------------------------
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 32                   4 Feb 1991


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

                         Latest Software Versions

                              MS-DOS Systems
                              --------------

                           Bulletin Board Software
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

     DMG            2.93    Phoenix         1.3    TAG           2.5g
     Fido            12s+   QuickBBS       2.66    TBBS           2.1
     GSBBS          3.02    RBBS          17.3B    TComm/TCommNet 3.4
     Lynx           1.30    RBBSmail      17.3B    Telegard       2.5
     Kitten         2.16    RemoteAccess  0.04a    TPBoard        6.1
     Maximus        1.02    SLBBS          1.77A   Wildcat!      2.55
     Opus           1.14+   Socrates       1.10    WWIV          4.12
     PCBoard        14.5                           XBBS          1.15

     Network                Node List              Other
     Mailers     Version    Utilities   Version    Utilities  Version

     BinkleyTerm    2.40    EditNL         4.00    ARC            7.0
     D'Bridge       1.30    MakeNL         2.31    ARCAsim       2.30
     Dutchie       2.90C    ParseList      1.30    ARCmail       2.07
     FrontDoor     1.99c    Prune          1.40    ConfMail      4.00
     PRENM          1.47    SysNL          3.14    Crossnet      v1.5
     SEAdog        4.51b    XlatList       2.90    DOMAIN        1.42
     TIMS      1.0(Mod8)    XlaxDiff       2.35    EMM           2.02
                            XlaxNode       2.35    4Dog/4DMatrix 1.18
                                                   Gmail         2.05
                                                   GROUP         2.16
                                                   GUS           1.30
                                                   HeadEdit      1.15
                                                   InterPCB      1.31
                                                   LHARC         1.13
                                                   MSG            4.1
                                                   MSGED         2.06
                                                   MSGTOSS        1.3
                                                   Oliver        1.0a
                                                   PK[UN]ZIP     1.10
                                                   QM             1.0
                                                   QSORT         4.03
                                                   Sirius        1.0x
                                                   SLMAIL        1.36
                                                   StarLink      1.01
                                                   TagMail       2.41
                                                   TCOMMail       2.2
                                                   Telemail      1.27
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 33                   4 Feb 1991


                                                   TMail         1.15
                                                   TPBNetEd       3.2
                                                   TosScan       1.00
                                                   UFGATE        1.03
                                                   XRS           4.00*
                                                   XST            2.2
                                                   ZmailH        1.14


                                OS/2 Systems
                                ------------

     Bulletin Board Software   Network Mailers     Other Utilities

     Name            Version   Name      Version   Name       Version

     Maximus-CBCS       1.02   BinkleyTerm  2.40   Parselst      1.32
                                                   ConfMail      4.00
                                                   EchoStat       6.0
                                                   oMMM          1.52
                                                   Omail          3.1
                                                   MsgEd         2.06
                                                   MsgLink       1.0C
                                                   MsgNum        4.14
                                                   LH2           0.50
                                                   PK[UN]ZIP     1.02
                                                   ARC2          6.00
                                                   PolyXARC      2.00
                                                   Qsort          2.1
                                                   Raid           1.0
                                                   Remapper       1.2
                                                   Tick           2.0
                                                   VPurge        2.07


                                 Xenix/Unix
                                 ----------

     BBS Software                  Mailers         Other Utilities
     Name             Version  Name      Version   Name       Version

                               BinkleyTerm 2.30b   Unzip         3.10
                                                   ARC           5.21
                                                   ParseLst     1.30b
                                                   ConfMail     3.31b
                                                   Ommm         1.40b
                                                   Msged        1.99b
                                                   Zoo           2.01
                                                   C-Lharc       1.00
                                                   Omail        1.00b

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 34                   4 Feb 1991


                                 Apple CP/M
                                 ----------

     Bulletin Board Software   Network Mailers     Other Utilities

     Name            Version   Name      Version   Name       Version

     Daisy               v2j   Daisy Mailer 0.38   Nodecomp      0.37
                                                   MsgUtil        2.5
                                                   PackUser        v4
                                                   Filer         v2-D
                                                   UNARC.COM     1.20


                                 Macintosh
                                 ---------

     Bulletin Board Software   Network Mailers     Other Utilities

     Name            Version   Name      Version   Name       Version

     Red Ryder Host     2.1    Tabby         2.2   MacArc         0.04
     Mansion            7.15   Copernicus    1.0   ArcMac          1.3
     WWIV (Mac)         3.0                        LHArc          0.33
     Hermes             1.01                       StuffIt Classic 1.6
     FBBS               0.91                       Compactor      1.21
                                                   TImport        1.92
                                                   TExport        1.92
                                                   Timestamp       1.6
                                                   Tset            1.3
                                                   Import          3.2
                                                   Export         3.21
                                                   Sundial         3.2
                                                   PreStamp        3.2
                                                   OriginatorII    2.0
                                                   AreaFix         1.6
                                                   Mantissa       3.21
                                                   Zenith          1.5
                                                   Eventmeister    1.0
                                                   TSort           1.0
                                                   Mehitable       2.0
                                                   UNZIP         1.02c

                                   Amiga
                                   -----

     Bulletin Board Software   Network Mailers     Other Utilities

     Name            Version   Name      Version   Name       Version

     Paragon           2.082+  BinkleyTerm  1.00   AmigArc       0.23
     TransAmiga         1.05   TrapDoor     1.50   AReceipt       1.5
     FidoNews 8-05                Page 35                   4 Feb 1991


                               WelMat       0.42   booz          1.01
                                                   ConfMail      1.10
                                                   ChameleonEdit 0.10
                                                   ElectricHerald1.66
                                                   Lharc         1.30
                                                   MessageFilter 1.52
                                                   oMMM         1.49b
                                                   ParseLst      1.30
                                                   PkAX          1.00
                                                   PK[UN]ZIP     1.01
                                                   PolyxAmy      2.02
                                                   RMB           1.30
                                                   RoboWriter    1.02
                                                   Skyparse      2.30
                                                   TrapList      1.12
                                                   Yuck!         1.61
                                                   Zippy (Unzip) 1.25
                                                   Zoo           2.01



                                 Atari ST
                                 --------

     Bulletin Board         Network                Node List
     Software    Version    Mailer      Version    Utilities  Version

     FIDOdoor/ST    2.11*   BinkleyTerm  2.40jt    ParseList     1.30
     QuickBBS/ST    1.02    The BOX        1.20    Xlist         1.12
     Pandora BBS   2.41c                           EchoFix       1.20
     GS Point       0.61
     LED ST         1.00
     MSGED         1.96S

     Archiver               Msg Format             Other
     Utilities   Version    Converters  Version    Utilities  Version

     LHARC          0.60    TB2BINK        1.00    ConfMail      4.03*
     ARC            6.02    BINK2TB        1.00    ComScan       1.02
     PKUNZIP        1.10    FiFo           2.12*   Import        1.14
                                                   OMMM          1.40
                                                   Pack          1.00
                                                   FastPack      1.20
                                                   FDsysgen      2.16*
                                                   FDrenum       2.10
                                                   Trenum        0.10



                                Archimedes
                                ----------

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 36                   4 Feb 1991


     BBS Software           Mailers                Utilities
     Name        Version    Name        Version    Name       Version

     ARCbbs         1.44    BinkleyTerm    2.03    Unzip        2.1TH
                                                   ARC           1.03
                                                   !Spark       2.00d

                                                   ParseLst      1.30
                                                   BatchPacker   1.00


     + Netmail capable (does not require additional mailer software)
     * 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 8-05                Page 37                   4 Feb 1991


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

                          The Interrupt Stack


     16 Feb 1991
        Fifth anniversary of the introduction of Echomail, by Jeff Rush.

     30 Mar 1991
        Jim Grubs (W8GRT) was issued his first ham radio license forty
        years ago today. His first station was made from an ARC-5
        "Command Set" removed from a B-17 bomber.

     12 May 1991
        Fourth anniversary of FidoNet operations in Latin America and
        second anniversary of the creation of Zone-4.

     15 Aug 1991
        5th annual Z1 Fido Convention - FidoCon '91 "A New Beginning"
        Sheraton Denver West August 15 through August 18 1991.

      8 Sep 1991
        25th anniversary of first airing of Star Trek on NBC!

      7 Oct 1991
        Area code  415  fragments.   Alameda and Contra Costa Counties
        will  begin  using  area  code  510.   This includes  Oakland,
        Concord, Berkeley  and  Hayward.    San  Francisco, San Mateo,
        Marin, parts of  Santa Clara County, and the San Francisco Bay
        Islands will retain area code 415.

      1 Feb 1992
        Area  code 213 fragments.    Western,  coastal,  southern  and
        eastern portions of Los Angeles  County  will begin using area
        code 310.  This includes Los  Angeles  International  Airport,
        West  Los  Angeles,  San  Pedro and Whittier.    Downtown  Los
        Angeles  and  surrounding  communities  (such as Hollywood and
        Montebello) will retain area code 213.

      1 Dec 1993
        Tenth anniversary of Fido Version 1 release.

      5 Jun 1997
        David Dodell's 40th Birthday


     If you have something which you would like to see on this
     calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1.

     FidoNews 8-05                Page 38                   4 Feb 1991


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

