BBS: TELESC.NET.BR Assunto: #1 in Google De: Michiel van der Vlist Data: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 10:46:26 +0100 ----------------------------------------------------------- Hello Dan, On Friday March 13 2026 21:59, you wrote to Ward Dossche: DC> Of course it opens up other issues... So the requirement for an FTSC DC> member to be a nodelisted sysop is "met" by doing this, but it's DC> really not a true/honest representation. He's *NOT* a nodelisted DC> sysop, but this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway. Does that seem DC> right? It does not seem right to me... DC> I see your reasoning to some extent, because we probably shouldn't DC> lose the FTSC because of a 40-year-old obsolete document. DC> Here's an honest question - why can't P4 be changed? What's stopping DC> that from happening? Or is this FTSC requirement defined in the FTSC DC> "charter" (if that's the right word), rather than in P4? What I'm DC> getting at is how can the minimum number of FTSC members be DC> changed/reduced to avoid having to resort to Nodelist fuckery to DC> "illegally" keep it alive? Changing the required minimum number of FTSC members is not hard. All it needs is a decision by the FTSC members. In fact this already happened some years ago. The number was reduced from seven to five in order to address the problem already mentioned. Not enough candidates. But that wasn't enough to "save" the FTSC. We see what happened next... The sad reality is that the FTSC is the facto dead. The only visible remaining activty in the last three quarters of a decade is the yearly charade of the election. Might as well face reality and disband it. Cheers, Michiel --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555) ----------------------------------------------------------- [Voltar]