;Date 14 Jan 93 21:55:00 From: Glen Johnson@1:2605/269 To: Tom Jennings@1:125/111 Subject: technical question Options: private ;Status: recv'd (read 2 times) ;MSGID: 1:2605/269@fidonet 0715c0a4 ;PID: FM+ 2.1 ;FLAGS DIR Tom, We're crossing the t's and dotting the i's on the final draft of Policy 4.1 . It should be ready by the weekend. Now, we are going to want to have the thing published in Fidonews, but that raises a question. The document doesn't conform to ARTSPEC.DOC . Its in the same format as the current policy 4.07, which I also believe doesn't conform to ARTSPEC.DOC . What do we need to do to get it acceptable for publication? If we MAKE it conform to ARTSPEC.DOC it'll probably look like hell. How were previous policy proposals, like WorldPol submitted to Fidonews? Or can you just take the policy document when I send it, and keep it as a separate file and include it in the archive? How do you want to handle this? Glen ;Date 15 Jan 93 20:41:42 From: Tom Jennings@1:125/111 To: Glen Johnson@1:2605/269 Subject: re: technical question Options: kill-sent private ;Status: (read 2 times) ;INTL 1:2605/269 1:125/111 ;PID: ReadMail ;MSGID: 1:125/111 2B572186 GJ> Now, we are going to want to have the thing published in GJ> Fidonews, but that raises a question. It's also far, far too long (1) for a single article and (2) any reasonable human's attention/punishment ability. My only suggestion is painful for you, but better "you" (authors) than the 10,000 -- 20,000 readers: Generate a prose article discussing the "delta" between existing policy, and the new one. Where applicable, compare actual text, describe the INTENT/GOAL and the ACTUAL LANGUAGE/IMPLEMENTATION. Only if you thoroughly explain what's going on will anyone even take you seriously. *Every* previous "policy" attempt has taken the "believe us -- it's good for you" approach, and has correctly and appropriately been slagged for it. This is an issue completely separate from the actual CONTENT of your document. In other words, you ain't my mother, and even if you was, I wouldn't do what you say, so there. Pretend I'm a peer instead. Etc. No sense in pretending "if you understand us, you'll agree that..." because you know flat out that ain't true. LOTS of people will disagree. No matter what it is ytou say, with 9,000 people in Z1 alone you're gonna get dissent... and you ahve to take it all seriously. You might even learn something, yes, even from the cranks. (Example: taking Steve Winter seriously last year re: his HOLY_BIBLE echo and all taught me a lot about FidoNews editorial process. And he shut up too.) Be prepared to grit your teeth, and take a lot of shit. Your work has just BEGUN, it is *not* almost over. I'm not kidding or exaggerating. It will take you the rest of the year, is my guess, to get any reasonable and functional policy change accomplished. I hope I don't sound overly negative, I'm not. Consider you're attempting to do something that will affect tens of thousands of people, in something they believe, and rightly so, to be in their own control, NOT YOURS. It actually has to be in their best interest, and you gotta shown them where it is (and if it's not... oh well!) Good luck! --- ReadMail * Origin: tomj@fidosw.fidonet.org / World Power Systems (1:125/111)