Volume 5, Number 50 12 December 1988 +---------------------------------------------------------------+ | _ | | / \ | | /|oo \ | | - FidoNews - (_| /_) | | _`@/_ \ _ | | International | | \ \\ | | FidoNet Association | (*) | \ )) | | Newsletter ______ |__U__| / \// | | / FIDO \ _//|| _\ / | | (________) (_/(_|(____/ | | (jm) | +---------------------------------------------------------------+ Editor in Chief Dale Lovell Editor Emeritus: Thom Henderson Chief Procrastinator Emeritus: Tom Jennings Contributing Editors: Al Arango 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. Copyright 1988 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. The contents of the articles contained here are not our responsibility, nor do we necessarily agree with them. Everything here is subject to debate. We publish EVERYTHING received. Table of Contents 1. ARTICLES ................................................. 1 The Revolutionization of Echomail ........................ 1 Recommendations on Current IFNA Bylaws Ballot ............ 6 An IFNA Executive Committee Statement of Direction ....... 10 2. NOTICES .................................................. 19 The Interrupt Stack ...................................... 19 New Medical Echo: MEDLIT -- Medical Literature Discussi .. 19 Latest Software Versions ................................. 19 3. COMMITTEE REPORTS ........................................ 21 Special Election For Bylaws Amendments ................... 21 FidoNews 5-50 Page 1 12 Dec 1988 ================================================================= ARTICLES ================================================================= Everything You ever wanted in an Echomail Processor but were afraid to ask for! by Philip J. Buonomo (1:107/583) or (7:520/583) or (9:807/1) What would the 'dream' echomail processor be like? Well, what causes most of the problems for sysops who want to process echomail nowadays? Hmmm, how about DUPES, lost messages, flaming, off-topic messages, lack of moderator control, relative slowness of processing time, MEGA-bytes of disk space being taken up by SOMEONE ELSE'S ARCmail... The list goes on... At FIDOcon '88, Butch Walker used a phrase several times that caught my attention when talking to the software developers. He said (paraphrased), "We'll tell you what we want, then you guys can write it." Well, here's what I would like to see. How about an echomail processor that can guarantee NO dupes? And get RID of those SEEN-BY, PATH, EID, etc. lines! They just take up desperately needed disk space. (And who wants to look at 'em?) While we're at it, why should I have to keep (in multiple ARChives) copies of THE SAME CONFERENCES simply because they're going to different systems? This seems like the biggest waste of disk space going! And speaking of wasted disk space, why do we ALWAYS have to read those FLAMES and off-topic messages that seem to proliferate thru the echos? Those don't just waste disk space, they cost MONEY, as in phone bills sending that 'stuff' (insert four letter word here) around the country! My 'dream' echomail processor will HAVE to have some way to give the moderator COMPLETE control over message content. And another thing... I want my dream echomail processor to be completely controlled from my end. I'm TIRED of having to wait DAYS for some other sysop to have to link me into a conference just because he's too lazy or too technically naive to set it up for me! There should be some way to password/protect conferences that are secure. Let's face it, without full control by the moderator, ANYone can get ANY echo if they really want it! My dream echomail processor would also be the FASTEST available. FidoNews 5-50 Page 2 12 Dec 1988 I want it to be able to process a 2 meg 'star bundle' and make it available for others in SECONDS (yes, under 60, not 60 thousand). I also want my dream processor to handle the necessary control file for me (yes, I want a maximum of ONE), because I can't be bothered setting up AREAS.BBS or ECHO.CTL or any of that nonsense. I want to type something like "Add the TREK conference", and expect to GET it next mail event! And of course, my dream processor shouldn't CARE what's in a message's Origin line, or tear line, or should even NEED any of those! (Who was it that said that God wanted to create hot air so he invented politicians? ;-) This processor would have had to go thru extensive beta testing, too. I'm tired of 'new' programs that appear on the market and screw up my system for WEEKS. And of course, it would have to be able to work with ANY BBS software package available today that's already doing echomail. Science fiction, right? Still, wouldn't all that be swell? (Music: "When you wish upon a star...") You know what? Sometimes dreams come true! / \ o o | \_/ FidoNews 5-50 Page 3 12 Dec 1988 INTRODUCING GROUPMAIL, a REVOLUTIONARY way of processing conferences! No, all that is NOT science fiction! Its here now, and it WORKS! GROUPmail is the method by which ECHOmail should have worked in the first place. Here's a bit of history: Echomail was invented by Jeff Rush as a conferencing system for FidoNet mail systems (basically the Fido BBS program itself, at that time). His programs became very popular, to the point where almost all systems in the public amateur network were using it. Later, Bob Hartman wrote his Confmail system, which was faster than the original echomail programs, but which worked in essentially the same manner. Over time, as more and more systems tied into more and bigger echomail conferences, several problems surfaced. For instance, maintaining a good topology that will not cause duplicate messages requires a high degree of knowledge and cooperation between the various systems, and the continual unpacking, recreation, and repacking of messages requires a great deal of computer resources. Operating even a small echomail distribution system (by today's standards) requires many megabytes of disk space, much processor time, and quite a lot of human intervention and maintenance. Group mail has none of these problems, because it takes a fundamentally different approach to conference distribution. This basic difference can be summed up as follows: With echomail, you tell your system where to SEND a conference. With group mail, you tell your system where to GET a conference. Echomail was based on the Fido network mail mechanism, and works by creating network mail messages to other systems. As enhanced by ARCmail (and as later incorporated into Confmail), it uses the "file attach" mechanism to ship mail archives to other systems. Group mail instead uses the "file update request" mechanism to obtain mail archives from other systems. Group mail is a "star-based topology", meaning that several systems connect to one central (or "star") system. This star system may in turn be one of several that connect to a higher level star. The topology may be (and probably will be) different for every conference. The topmost star system in any given conference is the "top star". A person using that system may then be the "moderator" of that conference. All messages flow upward to the top star, and FidoNews 5-50 Page 4 12 Dec 1988 then back down to the conference participants. Since all messages MUST flow thru the top star before being distributed to the participating nodes, the moderator has COMPLETE control over the content of ALL the messages in the conference. He can remove FLAMES, or off-topic messages BEFORE they are distributed. In any given conference, any star other than the top star is a "middle star". For any given conference that you connect to, if you are not the top star then there is one system that you obtain the conference from. That person is your "uplink". Watch how this saves disk space: Suppose, for example, that you are a middle-star receiving two megabytes a day which you then pass on to fifty local systems. How much disk space do you need? With echomail the answer is 100 megabytes! In fact, to allow for occasional glitches in distribution, you'll need more like 200 megabytes. With group mail you need two megabytes for every day of traffic you retain. If you retain group mail archives for three days, you'll need six megabytes. How long will it take you to process those two megabytes? If you're running echomail, I don't even want to think about it! But with group mail it will take on the order of three seconds. One aspect of echomail that is conspicuously absent from group mail are the "vanity lines" (the tear line and the origin line at the end of each message). Group mail does not require an origin line because the original address is preserved in the message header. Also, group mail does not use SEEN-BY lines or PATH lines, so without an origin line there's no need to stick in a tear line. However, some folks really like those little taglines advertising their system, so the developers made it possible to stick them in. Whew! Enough for now! Let me just summarize by saying that all that I described in the first part of this article is available NOW. All you have to do is File REQuest from my system (or any of my friends who also have a copy). If you want to see the state of the art in GROUP Message Conferencing, just pickup a copy of GROUP201.ARC from my system, 1:107/583 (in FIDOnet), 7:520/583 (in the Alliance), or 9:807/1 (in Phoenix/Net). Or you could just call 1-201-935-1485 and d/l it directly. However you get it, GET IT, and ENJOY! (Yes, its SHAREWARE, NOT FREEWARE...) Thanks for your kind attention! FidoNews 5-50 Page 5 12 Dec 1988 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-50 Page 6 12 Dec 1988 Don Daniels 1:107/210 Recommendations on Current IFNA Bylaws Ballot As the author of several of the proposed bylaws changes, a Director of IFNA, and a member of the Bylaws committee that has been working on these proposals, it is my belief that at the present time I am as familiar with the bylaws and IFNA's needs as anyone else. Accordingly, I have decided to provide the following list of recommendations. Please note that this information is MY OWN and does not necessarily reflect any "official" view of those bodies referred to above. Normally I'd prefer to take a more positive approach and indicate which items to vote FOR. But as the majority of the proposed changes are positive, I'll concentrate on the negative. NAY Votes Recommended ===================== DEF.01 - It is suggested that the term "IFNA Network" be kept to refer to that entire group of Networks that communicate utilizing the FidoNet protocol and that have entered into agreement with IFNA (see the NEW amendment on Agreements near the end of the list). Also, please read my article on IFNA direction for more detail regarding this viewpoint. DEF.02 - I originally wrote this amendment to bring the bylaws into closer agreement with the contract that IFNA has with Tom Jennings. However, with the spread of other nets and the awarding of IFNA's 501c3 status, I now recommend against this amendment. Again, see my article on IFNA direction. DEF.04 - The International Coordinator is a FidoNet position. Eventually, it is quite possible that OtherNets, all communicating in the total FidoNet-protocol community, will also have their own "International Coordinators." Hence, it makes sense to omit this definition. The reference to the "election" of an IC certainly has had no bearing in practice to date. Eventually, this may all be subject to negotiated agreements between IFNA and Network entities. 01.02 - This is an attempt to enfranchise ALL members of FidoNet as members of IFNA. If FidoNet provides its own internal democratic processes to cover its own operation and IFNA restricts itself to the overall FidoNet protocol-using community, there is no need for this. In addition, agreeements between IFNA and all network entities may address this matter if it is needed. 01.03 - The same points made in the previous paragraph apply against this amendment as well. 01.04 - Again, another attempt at the same thing. By making FidoNews 5-50 Page 7 12 Dec 1988 membership in IFNA not be associated with any internal net matters, the need for every sysop in a net to have voting rights for operational matters no longer applies to IFNA. 01.05 - This amendment made some good attempts to work out a compromise whereby all sysops could have a vote on operational matters. However, despite its attempts to reduce costs, IFNA would still have to bear a burden of administrative overhead which is unfair. In any event, it and the three amendments that precede it, are no longer relevant if we go the route of establishing formal agreements between IFNA and network entities. 24.02 - I am very much in favor of International Representation in IFNA. However, I suggest voting against this proposal because it gives an unfair advantage to the Southern Pacific area. With approximately 5% of the total nodes, they would have roughly 20% of the Divisional Directors. This situation wherein the percentages of constituents within the respective divisions is constantly changing is a good reason to vote FOR 24.08, as changing these ratios through by-laws amendment is impractical. For instance, Europe has twice as many nodes as Division 12; therefore IT should be considered as the one with an additional representative, not zone 12. 24.06 - I have seen figures idicating that roughly 92 nodes exist in AlterNet and GoodEggNet combined that are not also in FidoNet. This is approximately 2% of the entire community. But Divisional Directors are to represent roughly 9% of the community each. Representation for nodes that cannot be represented through existing means should be a matter of negotiated agreement between IFNA and their network administration(s). 24.07 - See previous paragraph. 29 - This bylaw change, by REMOVING a provision, is an attempt to separate IFNA from FidoNet operation. As it appears that that is already an accepted direction and as it is a possibility that the VP-TC might still be responsible for a Nodelist of the overall IFNA Network (i.e., that network comprised of ALL FidoNet- compatible technology that has entered into agreement with IFNA) there is no compelling reason to remove this requirement at the present time. 39 - This amendment removes the right to establish policy of FidoNews from the IFNA Board of Directors, meaning such policy could only be changed by the membership of IFNA as a whole. This certainly seems to limit our flexibility, should there ever be an instance where changes become necessary. It should be obvious that even if the BoD ever did change policy in some unpopular way, as unlikely as that may be, the membership would still have the right to reverse them during the next election. So far, the Board has shown no desire to change current policies, indeed, it has reaffirmed them. Therefore, why should we reduce our flexibility? FidoNews 5-50 Page 8 12 Dec 1988 IMPORTANT YEAS ============== To end this article on a positive note, I should like to make the following points on some proposals for which I feel a "YEA" is especially important. 24.08 - As FidoNet grows, the ratios of Divisional representation to the number of constituents should remain constant across all Divisions. As can be seen from all the amendments trying to make adjustments, the present method of change is one which is cumbersome at best. The Board of Directors should be given the responsibility to maintain equal repesentation for all, so this amendment should be accepted. However, there is a problem with this amendment in that guidelines are not provided to the BoD to ensure that they do such modifications within those bounds. This amendment, if accepted now, will be worked on by the By-laws committee so that such direction is included on the next ballot. 35.02 - This is an important protection to minority interests. 40.02 - As can be seen from this ballot, our bylaws are in considerable need of work. To considerable extent, IFNA has fallen into trouble on numerous occasions because the bylaws were too inflexible, unclear, or impractical to follow. This amendment is a workable compromise between giving the Board the power to do what is necessary for IFNA to get its work done in timely fashion, and for protection and direction from the membership. NEW-02 - This amendment provides IFNA with separation from operational concerns, but directs it to provide various services such that those Nets will wish to become associated with IFNA. By providing formal agreements between IFNA and each network entity, it can be assured that both side's interests are protected and it can be a tremendous force toward reducing some of the squabbles we have experienced. NEW-03 - Note that the Grievance procedure applies ONLY to internal IFNA matters and to such network entities as CHOOSE to adopt it as part of a formal agreement. It is NOT being shoved down anyone's throat; but it is there if the need is felt by sysops of any particular net. It also serves as the basis for conflict resolution BETWEEN nets which have opted to subscribe to its principles. NEW-04 - The States (and countries) are generally very backward when it comes to including new technologies in business methods. There really is no legal basis for doing business through such means as EchoMail because the law has yet to catch up. We need this bylaw to serve as a mandate for our use of such technological advances, both as a protection against question, and as a means to optimize our limited and scattered resources. FidoNews 5-50 Page 9 12 Dec 1988 If you haven't taken the time to vote, why not do it right now? ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-50 Page 10 12 Dec 1988 Don Daniels, Director International FidoNet Association 1:107/210 Problems Between IFNA And FidoNet ...and a Potential Solution For much of the last couple years I have heard a great deal to the effect that IFNA doesn't listen to the sysops of the net. I've always had cause to doubt this because during my term as President, whether I agreed or not, I always tried to listen to what sysops at all levels had to say and allowed their thoughts to at least simmer in the back of my consciousness. Quite a few of the Directors with whom I interacted also demonstrated this trait. To some degree this must have worked because in the last few months I have beeen hearing to greater degree that IFNA should not pay as much attention to what sysops have to say and that we should just get on with what we have to do. This points out the first problem. The officials of IFNA definitely consider themselves to be REPRESENTATIVES of the sysops and users of FidoNet. After all, the reason they joined IFNA in the first place was to promote FidoNet; not some abstract idea. They all feel that it is their duty to represent, as best they can, the wishes of their constituents. You would think then, that more would have been done by IFNA, but that brings us to the second problem. As representatives of BOTH the membership of IFNA and also of the Sysops and users of FidoNet, the directors are subject to too many contradicting viewpoints. These contradictions have a paralyzing effect on the directors who all feel strongly their responsibilities to both sides. Contributing to this paralysis is the fact that only a small percentage of all FidoNet sysops have actually joined IFNA. By withholding their direct support, these sysops send a message to the directors that they do not support whatever it is that IFNA may be attempting to do. The result is that IFNA directors find it difficult to feel a mandate to make any major moves. However it isn't even that simple; even within the membership of IFNA, there are factions who feel strongly that IFNA is the official head of FidoNet, while others feel just as strongly that it should be more of a stand-alone service organization. IFNA at least has mechanisms whereby it can poll its membership to see what the majority want and to work toward that. But this still isn't good enough because there is no existing mechanism in place whereby the majority will of FidoNet as a whole may be easily determined. What usually serves as the will of FidoNet tends to be just the expression of a few individual voices. There are several very real problems subject to this dichotomy that is IFNA at present. What is IFNA to be? A service-only organization, or the last word in FidoNet administration? It is because IFNA has tried to be both, that so little progress FidoNews 5-50 Page 11 12 Dec 1988 has been made. Imagine a train trying to head in both directions at once and then judge how much progress it can be expected to achieve. This dual-identity is the major problem that has created so much ill-feeling between IFNA and sysops in the past and that has resulted in so little positive results. There have been quite a few problems identified besides this main one of IFNA's primary direction. Should all members of FidoNet automatically be members of IFNA? Is it right that sysops have to "purchase" their right to vote on FidoNet issues by joining IFNA? Is IFNA responsible to just traditional FidoNet or does it also have a responsibility towards OtherNets? What is to be done when there is a problem with the IC? What are the rights of our Users? What if the *C structure does not appear to be providing sufficient levels of complaint resolution and protection of individual rights? How can we reconcile the existence of so many commercial nodes in a supposedly amateur network? What if IFNA did not exist at all - how would sysops expect to have any democratic voice in the governing of FidoNet? In fact, how can they have any even with IFNA, if there are no formally accepted means for their wishes to be communicated from IFNA to the *C structure? When IFNA was formed, there only was one net, FidoNet, which primarily existed in North America (yes, there were some nodes overseas, but they were hardly the force that should be reckoned with today). As a result, it made sense for there to be an organization that allowed for pooling and sharing of resources, provided corporate protection and U.S. tax shelters for these resources, and which also gave all sysops an opportunity to particpate in FidoNet operation and administration through democratic processes. Fortunately or unfortunately, times have changed. The network has expanded considerably and matured in many areas. We now have multiple Nets participating under an overall FidoNet protocol. FidoNet has grown considerably overseas and operations there, due to differences in their political and technical environments, require somewhat different solutions than what may be ideal here in North America. IFNA has finally been authorized by the IRS to proceed as a 501c3 charitable organization, which presents a great many new concerns in terms of opportunities as well as limitations. How then do we find a soution that will address all these problems and questions? I'm not sure that there is any ideal solution that provides ALL the answers to every need. The right path has to be one that follows a line of mutually acceptable compromise through a wide range of variables. We are, for the most part, traveling in uncharted territories; it is likely that what may even appear right for the majority today may prove to need adjustment tomorrow. The following then is a plan that is not espoused to be perfect; FidoNews 5-50 Page 12 12 Dec 1988 it is assumed that there are details that will need to be changed as we look deeper into specific areas and as we attempt to implement particular aspects. No doubt it will NOT be every thing that you expect IFNA/FidoNet/OtherNets to be or have. But when you consider its points, please do so in light of the following questions? Does it offer opportunities for us to progress in the general manner we ALL want? Is it better to follow this path than to stay where we are now? The Plan To best understand how this should be approached, let's first look at the IFNA Articles of Association: "IV. The purposes for which our corporation is formed are the following: A) the promotion of interest in telecommunications and experimentation; B) the establishment of telecommunication networks to provide publicly accessable and publicly available electronic communications; C) the furtherance of the public welfare; D) the advancement of telecommunications art the fostering of education in the field of electronic communication; E) the promotion and conduct of research and development to further the development of electronic communication; F) the dissemination of technical, educational, and scientific information relating to electronic communication; G) the printing and publishing of documents, books, magazines, newspapers and pamphlets necessary or incidental to any of the above purposes..." No where in the above is IFNA encouraged to operate or even administrate any individual network. Lets look into the IFNA Bylaws: "IFNA NETWORK: The current set of systems which have been certified as FidoNet compatible and conform to policies established by the Board of Directors." "29. The Vice President - Technical Coordinator shall: a) be responsible for maintenance and distribution of the master NODELIST; b) creation and distribution of the weekly update file for the master NODELIST; c) ensuring the smooth operation of the IFNA NETWORK as prescribed by the Board of Directors; ..." These are the only statements in the Bylaws that really have any bearing on what IFNA might be required to do relative to FidoNet. Notice that they speak of the "IFNA NETWORK". Once it was very FidoNews 5-50 Page 13 12 Dec 1988 easy to assume that that was "FidoNet" but is that still the case? Doesn't "IFNA NETWORK" include AlterNet, EggNet or AnyOtherNet running FidoNet protocol, assuming that both sides wish that to be the case? The Articles call for IFNA's "establishment of telecommunication network*S*..." [emphasis added]; it seems clear that it is part of IFNA's mission to assist in the establishment and promotion of such OtherNets. One other document comes into play here. It is the contract that was signed by Tom Jennings and IFNA: "...To ensure the orderly growth of the publically available and accessible electronic Bulletin Board Network Systems, which have come to be known by TJ's "FidoNet" Trademark, utilizing the products and services of TJ, as well as to assist in the maintenance of the standards governing membership in "FidoNet", TJ delegated, first to specific individuals and now solely to IFNA, specific responsibilities, namely: to maintain, publish and distribute the weekly updated listing of authorized Bulletin Board Systems, hereafter "FidoNet Nodelist"; to assist with the maintenance and expansion of the standards for the products and services authorized to be associated with TJ's marks; ... and to assist with the controlling and policing of TJ's marks..." This contract also predated the appearance of multiple networks utilizing the FidoNet protocol. But from the document, it can be seen that the intent was for IFNA to represent TJ's interests in terms of all "publically... accessible...Network Systems, which have come to be known by..."FidoNet"...". [It is probably appropriate to state here that TJ is on record as stating that he wishes to modify the agreement to meet various needs that have evolved.] I know from discussions with Tom that he encourages the concept of individual nets pursuing their own ideas of innovation, while being able to maintain a common basis for inter-communication. Now, it should be clear from the documents above, that IFNA's EXPLICIT requirement in terms of administration of any particular network (with the exception of the phrase "ensuring the smooth operation of the IFNA NETWORK") ends with that of producing a master nodelist. However, in the past, a wide range of additional tasks have been inferred, based on this one stated requirement and the traditional tasks related to it. As for the phrase, "ensuring the smooth operation of the IFNA NETWORK" this plan assumes that that has to refer to the complete, FidoNet-based inter-network, as opposed to any individual pieces per se. This plan calls for IFNA to do EXACTLY that which it's controlling documents call for it to do, but no more, in a direct sense, relative to administration of any one net. Indeed, there is a very strong likelihood that should IFNA continue to maintain any attempts to further a special relationship with traditional FidoNet, it would put two major elements into jeopardy: FidoNews 5-50 Page 14 12 Dec 1988 o IFNA's Position as FidoNet Protocol Protector for All - In order to assure that IFNA maintains its responsibility for the overall "IFNA NETWORK", it must do so equitably for all comers. o IFNA's 501c3 Status - In order to maintain its right to this privilege, IFNA must ensure that its actions match those purposes called for in the Articles of Association which it submitted to gain this right. So, if IFNA is not going to attempt to respond, again in a direct sense, to calls for it to provide democratic and improved jurisprudence and other administrative processes WITHIN traditional FidoNet, who is going to fill this need? The answer must be that either the basic existing *C structure be expanded to better address these requirements, or that an additional organization be formed that will address them. Either of these approaches could provide the necessary base for such action and it is not a matter for IFNA to directly declare which should be chosen nor how it should be implemented. There are certain advantages to both: o Expanding the *C structure is the easiest and quickest way to progress. There already is the existing operational structure; it just needs to provide mechanisms whereby the voices of ALL sysops within FidoNet may be better heard and satisfied. In the past, the *Cs have maintained that it is far better to work from a basis whereby *Cs are APPOINTED instead of elected by democratic process. There has always been a very good reason for this approach: the technical aspects of getting the mail through have outweighed all others. However, this is one area in which the network has certainly matured. There are now many competent sysops who can assure that the requirements of this function are met; and, there are now more and more important issues of administration that need to be dealt with for which the input of the constituent sysops is required. o Forming a new organization (or more than one) also makes sense when considered in various lights. Establishing present Zone 1 FidoNet as a TRUE hobbyist network, instead of one that just plays lip service to this ideal, could result in the split-off of those nodes that are commercially oriented into their own Net. We have already seen the formation of several special interest networks; it is only likely that this will continue and we should not only provide for this, but also encourage it (instead of the impossible attempt to make FidoNet all things to all people). In fact, there is no reason why both of the above approaches could not be undertaken; maintain the existing *C structure in traditional FidoNet, while centering it on hobbyist activity only. Concurrently, encourage the establishment of additional networks that address other needs. FidoNews 5-50 Page 15 12 Dec 1988 The key to this approach, of course, is that communication links be established and maintained between all these networks. Without a doubt, that is a primary thrust of IFNA's Articles of Association and a basis for its 501c3 position. IFNA needs to concentrate on these matters instead of being dragged down into intra-FidoNet operational squabbles. Once there is a division of responsibility between IFNA, which is limited to general policy-making, umbrella financial, tax, and representational support, and inter-net connections, and FidoNet (and all OtherNets), which are responsible for all of their own internal needs, quite a few of our persistent problems go away: o Service vs. Operate? - These arguments become moot when clear lines of responsibility are established. o Who should join IFNA? - Under this approach there is no reason for anyone to "HAVE" to join IFNA; it becomes an all-volunteer organization as it should be to meet requirements of it's 501c3 charter. o No one has to "buy" their vote - As all sysops, by virtue of their appearance in its Nodelist, would automatically be members of the new FidoNet organization their vote on operational issues would be assured. o "Freeloaders" could not control of other's donations - Because those who have demanded a right to vote on Net operational concerns would have that outside of IFNA there is no question of them voting on and controlling the disposition of funds and resources which they have not contributed. o Differences in intra-Zone operational requirements may be better resolved by the Zones themselves. Europe seems on the way to establishing its own FidoNet Association. There is no reason why it should not be self-governing, although it will be in everyone's best interests for Zone 2 FidoNet to enter into agreement with IFNA to maintain various universal standards of operation. o IFNA won't appear to be shoved down any Net's throat - With sufficient operating distance established between IFNA and the individual Nets there is room for both sides to maneuver - and for the Nets and IFNA to approach each other out of mutual desire to effect standards of operation and to share in the promotion of FidoNet. o Policy vs. Procedure - Under such an approach, IFNA becomes clearly responsible for establishing high-level policies that are then endorsed by the *C structure and the general sysop body. The *Cs retain responsibility for implementing these policies through various procedures and for adding detail necessary to address requirements at the various levels within the heirarchy. FidoNews 5-50 Page 16 12 Dec 1988 Problems Naturally, there are a few hurdles before such a plan can come to full fruition. The Bylaws of IFNA will need quite a few changes. Some of these changes are already on the ballot that IFNA members should be casting by the middle of January. Of particular note are Docket items NEW-02 and NEW-03 which, respectively, establish a procedure whereby IFNA is to interact with Network Operational Entities, and provide for the establishment of a Grievance Procedure that has jurisdiction internally to IFNA and between IFNA and such Nets as choose to subscribe to it. You should vote YEA on these two issues to get a start on this plan. (Note that this plan presently negates the need for docket numbers DEF.01, DEF.02, DEF.04, 24.06, 24.07, and 29. It is recommended that you vote NAY on these proposals). The question of the make-up of the IFNA Board of Directors is one which may likely have to be revised. It is possible that IFNA Directors, in addition to being elected by IFNA members, may be augmented by representatives who serve from constituent Networks, according to such agreements as may be established between IFNA and those Nets. The present scheme which divides North America into various regional segments may well be better suited for the operational organization of Zone1 FidoNet. This point typifies the fact that details will have to be worked out as we progress. Provisions in the Bylaws and the contract with TJ will also have to be included to allow for the existence and support of multiple Networks and Nodelists. But the biggest problem remains the fact that FidoNet does not have an existing operational infrastructure that is formally responsible to the sysops of the net or that operates on universal administrative principles and procedures. How do we get the *C structure (including EchoMail Coordinators) to integrate democratic processes into their operations? Realize, that this is not a simple question. Democracy needs to be in place to provide for expression of choice on various matters of policy and administration. But certain operational aspects may always need to be reserved. After all, in a hobbyist environment no one can actually be compelled to perform tasks designed to benefit others, particularly if they involve any expense. Really, beyond just the plain encouragement of peer pressure, the only power a hobbyist group may actually be able to invoke is that to enjoin. And the nature of FidoNet makes even that power very tenuous in some areas. Who Must Do What? In order to get this plan rolling IFNA must do the following: o Establish various necessary universal policies of administration and operation. IFNA's Articles, Bylaws, and contract with TJ all call upon IFNA to be responsible for defining policy. IFNA needs to take up this responsibility FidoNews 5-50 Page 17 12 Dec 1988 at the universal level, while leaving local details and aspects of procedure to the *C structure. o Concentrate on establishing the technical requirements for inter-Network communications. o Begin work on establishing the bases upon which all Nets may enter into formal agreements with IFNA. o Get working on changing its Bylaws where necessary. o Continue work on most of its other services such as standards, certification, and its own administration. The *C structure must: o Concentrate on Procedure more than actual Policy. Granted, the *C structure is responsible for detailed policy making at levels below the universal, but it should demand that IFNA provide them a satisfactory basis from which to work. o Make allowances in its present methods of administration and operation for more direct responsiveness to sysops at all levels. o Establish, or assist in causing to be established, formal procedures for such matters as voting, grievance resolution, and other operational concerns at all levels within their heirarchy. o Broaden involvement in these and other aspects of Net administration. Most *Cs have a great deal to do under the present conditions and it is often demonstrated that it is too much to expect of any volunteer. By creating more positions and extending involvement to more sysops, we ensure a much broader base of expertise to step in and take over in times of need. Sysops must: o Press and assist the *C structure in accomplishing the above. In particular, if you wish to have your voice heard relative to Net matters, then make sure it is! (Constructively, of course!) And insist that there be a more formal way for this to happen so we don't have to rely on the often torrid environment of EchoMail. o If you wish to see IFNA do something for you, join it and pitch in through vocal encouragement, moral support, or direct action. o Take responsibility for all the actions ascribed to the above. We all know "Rome wasn't built in a day." Each of us have our pet projects that we hope will be worked on and it is easy to become impatient when we see little progress. The key to progress here is to make sure that we've each put FidoNews 5-50 Page 18 12 Dec 1988 our own house in order to as great a degree possible; and then to help those who are responsible for what we feel we need, perhaps by just taking on some unrelated aspect of their burden to allow them the time to get to that what which we seek. With Sysops taking responsibility for this entire process, the *Cs increasing the franchise of all sysops at all heirarchial levels, and IFNA establishing the high-level political and technical inter- connections in a manner which is less intrusive than serving, there is a great chance that FidoNet can soon become a force far greater than it even is today. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-50 Page 19 12 Dec 1988 ================================================================= NOTICES ================================================================= The Interrupt Stack 24 Aug 1989 Voyager 2 passes Neptune. 5 Oct 1989 20th Anniversary of "Monty Python's Flying Circus" If you have something which you would like to see on this calendar, please send a message to FidoNet node 1:1/1. ----------------------------------------------------------------- New Medical Echo: MEDLIT -- Medical Literature Discussions Richard Kaplan Medical Software Exchange FidoNet: 1:135/3 Internet: medsoft.UUCP (305) 325-8709 I am organizing a new echo (MEDLIT) which will include discussions of current papers in popular medical journals such as JAMA and NEJM. I think electronic publishing ultimately could revolutionize the way medical information is disseminated by minimizing publication delays and providing for efficient discussion of controversial theories, including direct communication with authors. Perhaps FidoNet can in some way contribute to this vision. Think of MEDLIT as an electronic letters-to-the-editor section of your favorite medical journal. If the echo is of high enough quality and has enough participation, I would be willing to compile the messages periodically and submit them to the editors of the appropriate journals, similar to the publication of the "Best of Bix" in Byte magazine at one time. Let me know if you would like to link into this echo or if you have any suggestions about organizing it. I am PC-PURSUITABLE, but if you do not use PC PURSUIT then I will try to link you in locally as the distribution list grows. ----------------------------------------------------------------- Latest Software Versions BBS Systems Node List Other & Mailers Version Utilities Version Utilities Version FidoNews 5-50 Page 20 12 Dec 1988 Dutchie 2.90b EditNL 4.00 ARC 5.32* Fido 12i MakeNL 2.12 ARCmail 1.1 Opus 1.03b Prune 1.40 ConfMail 4.00 SEAdog 4.10 XlatList 2.86 EchoMail 1.31 TBBS 2.1* XlaxNode 2.22 MGM 1.1 BinkleyTerm 2.00 XlaxDiff 2.22 TPB Editor 1.21 QuickBBS 2.03 ParseList 1.20 TCOMMail 1.1 TPBoard 4.2 TMail 8812* TComm/TCommNet 3.2 UFGATE 1.0 Lynx 1.10 GROUP 2.0* D'Bridge 1.10 FrontDoor 2.0 * 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 5-50 Page 21 12 Dec 1988 ================================================================= COMMITTEE REPORTS ================================================================= IFNA Election Committee 1:1/10 Special Election For Bylaws Amendments This past week ballots were mailed to all current members of record of IFNA for the Special Election for Bylaws Amendments. Completed ballots must be returned prior to January 16. For information as to where the completed ballot should be sent, please refer to the instructions contained within the package. Due to the large quantity of material in the ballot package it will not be reproduced here in FidoNews. The ballot package material is available for file request (BARK) from the Election Committee at either 138/34 (west coast) or 107/210 (east coast) under the name BALLOT.ARC. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-50 Page 22 12 Dec 1988 OFFICERS OF THE INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION Hal DuPrie 1:101/106 Chairman of the Board Bob Rudolph 1:261/628 President Matt Whelan 3:3/1 Vice President Ray Gwinn 1:109/639 Vice President - Technical Coordinator David Garrett 1:103/501 Secretary Steve Bonine 1:115/777 Treasurer IFNA BOARD OF DIRECTORS DIVISION AT-LARGE 10 Courtney Harris 1:102/732? Don Daniels 1:107/210 11 Bill Allbritten 1:11/301 Hal DuPrie 1:101/106 12 Bill Bolton 3:711/403 Mark Grennan 1:147/1 13 Rick Siegel 1:107/27 Steve Bonine 1:115/777 14 Ken Kaplan 1:100/22 Ted Polczyinski 1:154/5 15 Larry Kayser 1:104/739? Matt Whelan 3:3/1 16 Vince Perriello 1:141/491 Robert Rudolph 1:261/628 17 Rob Barker 1:138/34 Steve Jordan 1:102/2871 18 Christopher Baker 1:135/14 Bob Swift 1:140/24 19 David Drexler 1:19/1 Larry Wall 1:15/18 2 Henk Wevers 2:500/1 David Melnik 1:107/233 ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-50 Page 23 12 Dec 1988 __ 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. ----------------------------------------------------------------- FidoNews 5-50 Page 24 12 Dec 1988 INTERNATIONAL FIDONET ASSOCIATION ORDER FORM Publications The IFNA publications can be obtained by downloading from Fido 1:1/10 or other FidoNet compatible systems, or by purchasing them directly from IFNA. We ask that all our IFNA Committee Chairmen provide us with the latest versions of each publication, but we can make no written guarantees. Hardcopy prices as of October 1, 1986 IFNA Fido BBS listing $15.00 _____ IFNA Administrative Policy DOCs $10.00 _____ IFNA FidoNet Standards Committee DOCs $10.00 _____ SUBTOTAL _____ IFNA Member ONLY Special Offers System Enhancement Associates SEAdog $60.00 _____ SEAdog price as of March 1, 1987 ONLY 1 copy SEAdog per IFNA Member Fido Software's Fido/FidoNet $100.00 _____ Fido/FidoNet price as of November 1, 1987 ONLY 1 copy Fido/FidoNet per IFNA Member International orders include $10.00 for surface shipping or $20.00 for air shipping _____ SUBTOTAL _____ MO. Residents add 5.725% Sales Tax _____ TOTAL _____ SEND CHECK OR MONEY ORDER IN US FUNDS: International FidoNet Association PO Box 41143 St Louis, Mo. 63141 USA Name________________________________ Zone:Net/Node____:____/____ Company_____________________________ Address_____________________________ City____________________ State____________ Zip_____ Voice Phone_________________________ Signature___________________________ -----------------------------------------------------------------