Also time to ditch the multiple zone rule.
Let's write a new policy for all of Fidonet.
Something else that could be done would to be clean out the dross in the echoes. A few weeks ago when I linked up to Fidonet, I added all 429 echoes[snip]
..most trafficked are dead. So yesterday I
spent an hour or so unlinking about 80% of them.
Sure, what's wrong with leaving them there? Except paging through my echo list is like walking through an abandoned mansion shouting into empty
rooms. It gives Fidonet a cold, dead, empty feel.
On 03-16-19 21:53, August Abolins wrote to nathanael culver <=-
Perhaps we ought to take this topic to one of those suitable echos? I'm game.
Perhaps we ought to take this topic to one of those suitable echos?
I'm game.
Name it. I might have to areafix it though. ;)
On 03-17-19 05:00, August Abolins wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
Tony Langdon : August Abolins wrote:
Perhaps we ought to take this topic to one of those suitable echos?
I'm game.
Name it. I might have to areafix it though. ;)
Does FUTURE4FIDO make sense? I'm watching it now.
August Abolins wrote to nathanael culver <=-
One one hand, empty echos give the impression of inactivity or non-interest. On the other hand, they are an indication of suitable locations for discussion that *can* get started.
August Abolins wrote to nathanael culver <=-
One one hand, empty echos give the impression of inactivity.
..On the other hand, they are an indication of suitable
locations for discussion that *can* get started.
It's a catch-22. People can't respond where they don't read. I've
tried over the years to jump start echoes, and you may get a couple of responses, but no new topics posted.
Here's an idea -- get a critical mass of sysops to support a *new*
smaller set of echoes within Fidonet, and see if we can get those
going. A smaller group, more vibrant, more general topics, similar to othernets where the topics are broader and new echoes spun off only
when traffic dictates.
Here's an idea -- get a critical mass of sysops to support a *new*
smaller set of echoes within Fidonet, and see if we can get those
Sounds very good! Here's another approach. How about steering people into relevant echos that already exist when the subject matter matches that of an echo that exists.
Sounds very good! Here's another approach. How about steering people into relevant echos that already exist when the subject matter matches
On 03-18-19 10:24, nathanael culver wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
I think one of the first things that could be done is to reduce the
number of sysop echoes; some seem absolutely redundant, others
ambiguous, and many just plain dead. Plus, isn't most everyone left on Fidonet a sysop?
On 03-17-19 19:42, Kurt Weiske wrote to August Abolins <=-
I think we still have an audio echo somewhere (heh) we could talk about remastering CDs and audio levels there.
I think one of the first things that could be done is to reduce the
number of sysop echoes; some seem absolutely redundant, others
ambiguous, and many just plain dead. Plus, isn't most everyone left on
Fidonet a sysop?
I think you'll find there's too much history to do that. ;)
On 03-18-19 19:30, David Drummond wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
On 18/03/2019 17:49, Tony Langdon -> nathanael culver wrote:
I think one of the first things that could be done is to reduce the
number of sysop echoes; some seem absolutely redundant, others
ambiguous, and many just plain dead. Plus, isn't most everyone left on
Fidonet a sysop?
I think you'll find there's too much history to do that. ;)
The simple answer is to disconnect from the echoes one doesn't want to carry.
The simple answer is ...
The simple answer is ...
.. not necessarily the correct answer.
I think one of the first things that could be done is to reduce the
number of sysop echoes; some seem absolutely redundant, others
ambiguous, and many just plain dead. Plus, isn't most everyone left on
Fidonet a sysop?
I think you'll find there's too much history to do that. ;)
The simple answer is to disconnect from the echoes one doesn't want to
carry.
And I can see where that leads - no common ground.
pointless.We are each lord and master of our own systems - the systems of others
are none of our business (beyond the mutual connectivity).
That's true, but without some coordination, being connected becomes
Not that there's anything wrong with being a standalone system, if that'swhat
you want, but it's not conducive to echomail. :)
On 03-21-19 09:29, David Drummond wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
I *did* mention connectivity - both at a IP level and an echo level.
The content of the echo messages requires no further "coordination" nor oversight to happen.
On 03-19-19 07:29, David Drummond wrote to Tony Langdon <=-
We are each lord and master of our own systems - the systems of others
are none of our business (beyond the mutual connectivity).
| Sysop: | Zazz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Mesquite, Tx |
| Users: | 7 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 15:29:04 |
| Calls: | 157 |
| Files: | 2,118 |
| Messages: | 146,564 |