As some people didn't have the proper context, here some answers to
questions in #netrek:

> - joee1: Is that part of what was already being discussed or
> something completely different?

Yes, it's an attempt to summarize what has been discussed before in
long and wide-dispersed threads, which too often have gone off-topic
for the threads at hand but didn't answer the original issue.

> Basic_py: I saw no obvious question(s) in the posting.

The questions are marked with '?'.
The questions are simple, but make no sense without the context and
explanation provided below each of them and at the end (and all the
threads that occured before, which you might have ignored altogether).

> Basic_py: any purpose, {...} What is the problem Rado is
> attempting to address?

The problem:
- structure and leadership is unclear (no final authority),
- people fight at different fronts (more or less independently),
- they are not coordinated as well as they could be.
- progress propagation can be improved for people to hook up.

This includes to make it easier for developers to work together
(keywords compatibility and borg when everybody is allowed to do
whatever he wants to cheat or break something), make it easier for
players to get into trek games (again keyword borg, but different
facet from the previous), no authority to direct and supervise
coordination and define standard and enforce it.

The suggested solution: establish such role of authority to shorten
reaction times and have definitions for official trek variants (for
fairness by authorized clients), with a suggested procedural
framework how it might work.

> modemhero: rados means well, just sometimes his posts are rambling
> stream of thought and need to be filtered. this last one wasn't
> quite understandable
> Basic_py: my idea of short post and his are very different :-)

Ok, I mean _shorter_ than the dispersed threads.

 Meta-trek _is_ a complex issue, you can't put it in simple words of
a single sentence to which you simply can say yes/no, you need
_some_ context, which I tried to give in the simplest possible form
while at the same time providing all relevant info.

Leaving out parts would open speculation that this might have not
been thought of, being open to arbitrariness, which it shouldn't be
unless explicitely desired.

Separating parts to make eMails shorter for you to read would break
the overall context: focusing on just a selection will cause
imbalance with the rest, it only works together.

> several: Rado is stirring up the pot.

... to get things moving beyond the thresholds of the past, to
overcome stagnation again (lack of interest or time) with the
current chance of drive at different ends (Joe, Bill, Paradise).

The original claim: the need for a change.
A solution: hand over control to those who aren't too busy to do
what is needed.
BUT: what is "needed"?
I see the need for structure and clear definitions, and a way to
provide "fairplay" (within a game but also among trek variants).

> Gerdesas: paradise-workers has been quite active lately with
> various people talk about trying to bring paratwink back to life;
> I am sure that this is related to that.

Yes: Of course I have an interest to coordinate Paradise efforts
with whatever happens with the rest of netrek, to join forces rather
than to do double-work or even compete against each other.
If necessary, we'd start our own resources for what we need, but I'd
rather not to if we can get together.

No: those are general questions about structure and organisation of
netrek as a whole, primarily Bronco, because historically it's the
variant giving the base name for all trek descendants, who might
become client-compatible at some future time. Even if there weren't
Paradise, I'd still love Bronco to see flurish rather than linger
around. In the end, from the success of one the other will benefit, too.

(even though some paranoid fanatics don't follow this logic and
rather see competition than cooperation, despite seeing that
sticking the head in the sand doesn't improve anything for _any_ trek)

> Basic_py: What does my being a mailing list admin and owner and
> co-maintainer of continuum have to do with paratwink?

See before: looking at the big picture Paradise is a part of it. If
you had objections either to carry Paradise on your list-server at
all or not to support changes to netrek core (Bronco is probably
your only concern), then you might consider revoking the services
you grant currently, _indepedently_ of Paradise, for Bronco alone.
So you _play_ a role, if not for Paradise, then at least for Bronco.

(BTW: has Dave contacted you for the move of paradise-workers from
SF to

> modemhero: I think i can condense his post into one sentence. What
> does the council perceive it's role and duties to be, and will
> paradise servers be allowed to be listed on the metaserver?


Rephrasing the purpose:
 what is _desired_ by the owners, status quo or change (along the
lines described, and apparently shared by [a few] others).
No progress without some change and drive.

> joee1: it sounded more like, this is the direction I am taking
> netrek and if you dont like it youre fired.
> Gerdesas: his comment about "must be replaced" irritated me
> greatly

Wrong: If there _were_ a direction, I'd like to follow it!
But atm everybody who I've asked refused to take direction and
required action(!), if they responded to that question at all!
 So, if there is nobody in this role, they can't be fired.

If on the other hand the chaos we have is _intentional_ ...
then I need to find something else to waste my time on.

If there were enough people agreeing with the need for an
organization _beyond_ merily providing resources, then such an
organization couldn't rely on impassive resource owners, therefore
the missing resources would need active owners (either as directors
themselves with the required actions or support those accepting the
duties, so the directors would act as "filters" and agents for them
to provide the services on the owner's resources, because the owners
are evidently too busy to do it themselves).

> Quozl: i thought it was "paradise is waking up, we have a
> tradition of forking from netrek, we're here to stir you up again
> to justify our separation." Whereas i would prefer that the
> paradise server code merge with vanilla.

You've mistaken me: because Paradise is waking up I want it to
_get back_ into the Netrek community!
But this is facing problems like protocol incompatibilties and
features definitions and enforcement (Bronco suffers the same from
the latter).
 Who's going to make the decisions and take necessary actions that
they're implemented by fair clients (as I see and have explained it)?
 For both, Paradise _and_ Bronco.

> Gerdesas: heh - nice reply, Quozl. Much more PC then I would have
> made it.
> Jerub: that wasn't PC at all. It was, however, Political.

I don't ask for PC, but I do ask for constructive, reasonable
participation. So Quozl does it right, even though he said he still
wouldn't understand my requests fully. I hope this post cleared it
up better, making the previous post more sensible now.

But see also the other replies.

> joee2: yes not sure why that came up when it did
> people do understand that there is currently a project in progress
> that should have an extremely positive impact on drawing in new
> pllayers dont they?

See one of the following cross-posts from Paradise-Workers where I
quote John R. Dennison.

What is needed is direction and coordination on _all_ fronts.

© Rado S. -- You must provide YOUR effort for your goal!
EVERY effort counts: at least to show your attitude.
You're responsible for ALL you do: you get what you give.