Path: utzoo!utgpu!jarvis.csri.toronto.edu!mailrus!umich!yale!cs.utexas.edu!usc!zaphod.mps.ohio-state.edu!van-bc!ubc-cs!alberta!dvinci!news From: lowey@dvinci!herald.usask.ca (Kevin &) Newsgroups: news.admin Subject: Re: comp.os.os2 <---> FidoNET gateway Message-ID: <1990Feb13.202042.9117@dvinci.usask.ca> Date: 13 Feb 90 20:20:42 GMT References: <567@m2xenix.UUCP> Sender: news@dvinci.usask.ca Reply-To: lowey@dvinci!herald.usask.ca Organization: University of Saskatchewan Lines: 83 I was just going to let this whole mess die, but the following message was just too much for me to ignore. From article <567@m2xenix.UUCP>, by news@m2xenix.UUCP (Randy Bush): > You may be please to know that it is FidoNet gating policy not to gate > newsgroups/echos without informed discussion and consent of both sides. Before joining the comp.os.os2 newsgroup to the Fidonet OS/2 echomail area, there was a one month discussion in both comp.os.os2 and the fidonet OS/2 echomail area. In this discussion I asked: 1) Was there any interest in joining the groups together. 2) Who were the responsible people I should contact. Although a few people expressed doubts that I could make it fly, everyone was willing to give the link a try. The fidonet echomail moderator replied to me and said it was ok as far as he was concerned. All I got from the Usenet side was mail saying that since comp.os.os2 is an unmoderated newsgroup, there is no responsible person that I should talk to. I decided in this case to merge only if there was a consensus in the comp.os.os2 newsgroup, which there was (more yes votes than no by about a 10 to 1 margin). So, there WAS "informed discussion and consent of both sides". I didn't just put this together on a whim. > The site which is doing so is in gross violation of those guidelines and > has ignored pleas from both sides. This is also false. When I implemented the gateway, I expected problems. I told all the parties envolved that this was for A ONE MONTH TRIAL PERIOD. I chose one month because I wanted time to fix any technical problems which may arise. If the problems were not fixed by the end of the month, or if the consensus of EITHER the Usenet or the Fidonet side was to cancel the gateway then I would cancel it. I also wanted the one-month trial period to give users on both sides a chance to get used to the other side's customs. I realised that each side would have to "give" a little bit to accomodate the other. I also said that I would immediately cancel the gateway at the request of the Fidonet echomail moderator, or the responsible person in Usenet (if he ever identified himself). I received a few messages from someone who only identified himself to me as "Ran". I told him I was addressing his concerns, and would keep his comments in mind when the end of the one-month trial period was finished. After a few of these messages, Ran finally told me that he was the person who created the comp.os.os2 newsgroup. He also notified me that he had posted a message in comp.os.os2, news.admin, org.fidonet, and news.groups demanding that I shut down the gateway. Once I realised he was the responsible person from the Usenet side, I shut the gateway down as requested. If Ran had told me right of the bat that he was the person responsible for comp.os.os2, and if after doing so he would have asked me directly to shut down the gateway, I would have done so. Because he did not identify himself as the responsible person, I was simply taking his comments as a vote against the gateway to be taken into consideration at the end of the one month trial period. > So whaddya do with a net.@hole? Please, don't let this degenerate into a flaming match. I posted this message so that people who were not following the comp.os.os2 newsgroup would know that this was handled in what I thought was a very reasonable manner. I gave a one month discussion period, at which time if there was no interest I would not have started the gateway. There was interest. I then offered to limit the experiment to a one month trial period, instead of staying with it forever. That gave people a chance to find out what the gateway was like before committing themselves one way or another. I also gave the people responsible for either side of the gateway veto power over the gateway. What more was I supposed to do????? By the way, I agree with RAN that the best way to handle this is to create a new FIDO.whatever hierarchy for posting Fidonet newsgroups. This would ensure that I wouldn't be stepping on anyones toes. - Kevin Lowey (LOWEY@SASK.USASK.CA)