BBS:      TELESC.NET.BR
Assunto:  Re: #1 in Google
De:       Dan Clough
Data:     Fri, 13 Mar 2026 21:59:41 -0500
-----------------------------------------------------------
-=> Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-

 WD> Dan,

 DC> So, I'll ask again.  Why do you have that *INVALID* nodelist entry in
 DC> your segment?

 WD> Thank you for decently asking.

 WD> The true reason is that without this entry the FTSC was going to sink
 WD> below the minimum membership and therefor would have to be disbanded.

 WD> I still believe in the FTSC, unlike several others, and will do what I
 WD> need to do as far as possible to support its continuation.

 WD> Is this better?

It's better, and does actually answer the question I asked, so thanks 
for that.

Of course it opens up other issues...  So the requirement for an FTSC 
member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but it's really 
not a true/honest representation.  He's *NOT* a nodelisted sysop, but 
this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway.  Does that seem right?  

I see your reasoning to some extent, because we probably shouldn't lose 
the FTSC because of a 40-year-old obsolete document.

Here's an honest question - why can't P4 be changed?  What's stopping 
that from happening?  Or is this FTSC requirement defined in the FTSC 
"charter" (if that's the right word), rather than in P4?  What I'm 
getting at is how can the minimum number of FTSC members be 
changed/reduced to avoid having to resort to Nodelist fuckery to 
"illegally" keep it alive?  Again, these are serious questions, if you 
don't mind answering them.  Thanks in advance.




... 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)

-----------------------------------------------------------
[Voltar]