Date: Mon, 19.08.13 20:01
A regional policy
Sunday August 18 2013, Ward Dossche wrote to Michael Dukelsky:
MD>> If a region wants now to issue a local policy, who will approve it
MD>> in the absence of an elected IC? ZCC? Or is it OK to live without
MD>> any approval?
WD> In Z2 we already have a regional policy that covers R24 (Germany).
WD> The sysops there have discussed in-depth how to run Fidonet in their
WD> region and I as ZC was fully OK with that.
WD> I fully understand that Zone-2 is composed of many islands with their
WD> own peculiarities and that often P4 offers no solution and in specific
WD> cases may even be illegal. Hence the need may arise to have a local
WD> policy even though at first sight it may be contradictory to what
WD> so-called "visionary people without a clue" 25 years ago or more
WD> The purpose of a policy, and therefore also of a local policy, is to
WD> make things function better. That can only be applauded.
WD> The only reservations I made in the case of R24 were:
WD> * Your regional policy cannot apply outside of your region
WD> * If a policy complaint comes forward and reaches the Zonal level,
WD> then I'm sorry but P4 will be the yardstick.
WD> Perhaps it was worded different, but that was the meaning of the
WD> 12 years later there has not been a single complaint reaching my
WD> RC50 has netmailed a similar question as R50 I understand wants to
WD> embark upon a similar adventure and I answered him in netmail
WD> generally the same thing.
WD> Mind you, your regional policy would not replace P4 if that is what
WD> your question is about. It supplements it.
WD> Are you OK with this?
I'm perfectly OK. Thank you for the detailed response. Have you an English
version of the R24 local policy you mentioned and if yes could you please send
it to me? Then I can publish it in R50.SYSOP, so we do not reinvent a wheel.
... dukelsky (at) aha (dot) ru
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20100314
* Origin: Moscow, Russia (2:5020/1042)