Nп/п : 71 из 100
От : Dan Clough 1:135/115 15 мар 26 20:44:16
К : Michiel van der Vlist 15 мар 26 04:47:02
Тема : Re: #1 in Google
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: 14189.fido_fidonews@1:135/115 2e1ccddd
@REPLY: 2:280/5555 69b6e405
@TZUTC: -0500
@PID: Synchronet 3.21d-Linux master/7296dc0d4 Feb 27
2026 GCC 14.2.0
@TID: SBBSecho 3.37-Linux master/7296dc0d4 Feb 27
2026 GCC 14.2.0
@BBSID: PALANTIR
@CHRS: CP437 2
@FORMAT: flowed
-=> Michiel van der Vlist wrote to Dan Clough <=-
DC>> Of course it opens up other issues... So the requirement for an
DC>> FTSC member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but
DC>> it`s really not a true/honest representation. He`s *NOT* a
DC>> nodelisted sysop, but this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway.
DC>> Does that seem right?
MvV>> It does not seem right to me...
DC> Same here.
MvV> Consider this: Not only is 2:2/29 in violation of P4, it also is
MvV> incomplient with the FTSC standards. In particular FTS-5000.005. So
MvV> what we see is that in order to "save" the FTSC the FTSC standard is
MvV> violated. Instigated by the IC/ZC2. Hold on to that thought...
Yeah, none of that makes any logical sense. Makes one wonder about
"ulterior motives". Why save an organization that is ignored any way?
MvV>> Changing the required minimum number of FTSC members is not
MvV>> hard. All it needs is a decision by the FTSC members. In fact
MvV>> this already happened some years ago. The number was reduced
MvV>> from seven to five in order to address the problem already
MvV>> mentioned. Not enough candidates. But that wasn`t enough to
MvV>> "save" the FTSC. We see what happened next...
DC> Understood, thanks.
MvV> You`r welcome. So it would not be all that hard to change it again and
MvV> reduce the required number from five to three. But then what is the
MvV> next step? reduce it to one? The lack of condidates is not realy the
MvV> cause, it is a symptom.
Agreed. Why serve on a committee where you know going in that nothing
you will try to do will go anywhere, and even if it did... it`ll be
ignored by the "upper management" anyway. Obvious cause for the lack of
candidates and motivation.
MvV>> The sad reality is that the FTSC is the facto dead. The only
MvV>> visible remaining activty in the last three quarters of a decade
MvV>> is the yearly charade of the election. Might as well face
MvV>> reality and disband it.
DC> You may be right. It seems especially ironic right now, because there
DC> are actually some new technologies, methods, software, standards,
DC> specifications, etc being actively developed and released. Just
DC> exactly what the FTSC "needs". Not sure why there isn`t more
DC> interest, nor anything actually being done by the FTSC.
MvV> When I was FTSC chairman I operated under the premisse that anyone can
MvV> submit a proposal for discussion with the Fidonet comunity and then
MvV> when it it picked up by developers and after due consideration it is
MvV> promoted to a standard by the FTSC, it is binding. Or that at least it
MvV> would be considered as such by the *C hierarchy.
MvV> When that premise turned out to be false, it killed my motivation. *1)
MvV> And so after due consideration I resigned. After that several FTSC
MvV> members also were not available for another term. Writing good
MvV> documentation is not a tivial task. It takes time and energy. Who wants
MvV> to put time and energy in writing documentation when is can be shoved
MvV> aside just like that by a decree from the "powers that be"?
Yea I can see that as being a real motivation-killer.
MvV> Just my EUR 0,02.
MvV> *1) By the IC - without any consultation with the Fidonet community -
MvV> who introduced the so called MOB nodes by decree. And forcing RCs to
MvV> accept and process nodelist segments in violation of FTS-5000.
Wow. That`s pretty disturbing. Not even sure what MOB nodes are, to be
honest, but none of that sounds like proper behavior. Ugh.
... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.37-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)
SEEN-BY: 1/120 18/0 50/109 103/705 116/116 123/0
180 755 3001 3002 124/5016
SEEN-BY: 134/100 135/0 115 205 220 240 260 363
366 385 390 391 153/143 148
SEEN-BY: 153/149 150 151 153 757 6809 7083 7715
154/10 30 203/0 220/6 221/0 6
SEEN-BY: 222/2 240/1120 5832 250/1 263/1 275/1000
280/464 5003 5006 5555
SEEN-BY: 292/854 8125 301/1 310/31 341/66 234
342/11 396/45 423/120 450/1024
SEEN-BY: 452/166 460/58 463/68 633/280 712/848 1321
770/1 3634/0 12 27 56 57
SEEN-BY: 3634/58 60 61 119 5000/111 5015/46
5020/400 545 715 830 846 1042
SEEN-BY: 5020/4441 12000 5023/24 5030/49 1081 1474
5053/51 55 58 5060/900
SEEN-BY: 5061/133 5068/45 5075/35 128 5083/444
@PATH: 135/115 3634/12 153/757 280/464 5555
5020/1042 4441