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

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?

ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ·
*HúUúMúOúNúGúOúUúS* BúBúS nathanael : jenandcal.familyds.org:2323
ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (3:712/886)

Sounds very good! Here's another approach. How about steering people into relevant echos that already exist when the subject matter matches

That would, I think, be at best a temporary fix. A particular discussion
could be relocated to an existing echo; after a week or so it would run its course, then the echo would go long-term dormant again. There simply isn't
the critical mass of Fidonet users there once was to sustain most of those echoes. Even usually hot-button issues like abortion and guns are generating zero traffic.

Last week, as prelude to paring down my echoes, I did a rescan for the previous 250 messages from every echo. Most of the echoes returned nothing, meaning they've lain absolutely unused since sometime before my upstream feed started carrying them. And likely means there isn't even anyone linked to them.

I think the solution would be to enable folks to ad hoc create echoes on the fly, so that if, for example, a Beatles thread evolves in FIDONEWS, one
could simply forward it to BEATLES and, if the echo tag doesn't exist,
it's created on-the-fly and propagated out.

Yes, there would be technical issues like what if a BEATLES echo already exists, but my NC just doesn't happen to carry it?

ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ·
*HúUúMúOúNúGúOúUúS* BúBúS nathanael : jenandcal.familyds.org:2323
ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (3:712/886)

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.

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

The simple answer is ...

... not necessarily the correct answer.

ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ· ÖÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄ·
*HúUúMúOúNúGúOúUúS* BúBúS nathanael : jenandcal.familyds.org:2323
ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ ÓÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄÄĽ

--- Mystic BBS v1.12 A43 2019/03/03 (Raspberry Pi/32)
* Origin: *HUMONGOUS* BBS (3:712/886)

On 18/03/2019 20:47, nathanael culver -> David Drummond wrote:

The simple answer is ...

.. not necessarily the correct answer.

Nor is it necessarily the incorrect answer.

If you want to be listed as Z1 then get nodelisted in that zone.

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

On 18/03/2019 20:48, Tony Langdon -> David Drummond 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.

And I can see where that leads - no common ground.

As they have none already why complicate matters?

We (collectively) go on and on about freedom of the individual yet we (collectively) seem to want to tell others what echoes they can or cannot carry - to the degree of insisting on the disbandment of the echoes we (collectively) do not want them to carry.

We are each lord and master of our own systems - the systems of others are none of our business (beyond the mutual connectivity).

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)

On 20/03/2019 12:28, Tony Langdon -> David Drummond wrote:

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 pointless.
Not that there's anything wrong with being a standalone system, if that's what
you want, but it's not conducive to echomail. :)

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.

--

Regards
David

--- Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; rv:31.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/31.8.0
* Origin: Bucca, Qld, Australia (3:640/305)