BBS: TELESC.NET.BR Assunto: Re: #1 in Google De: Dan Clough Data: Sat, 14 Mar 2026 10:37:07 -0500 ----------------------------------------------------------- -=> Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=- 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 really DC> not a true/honest representation. He's *NOT* a nodelisted sysop, but DC> this allows him to be on the FTSC anyway. Does that seem right? WD> If the requirement is to be nodelisted, then in his case the WD> requirement is fullfilled. Yes. I'd have to disagree. Yes, he is "listed" in the nodelist. But I would argue that the term *nodelisted* carries with it, by definition, that it is a proper/legal/valid/correct listing. This one is *NOT* that. DC> I see your reasoning to some extent, because we probably shouldn't lose DC> the FTSC because of a 40-year-old obsolete document. WD> The requirement is not in P4 but in the FTSC-charter which previously WD> had a higher number of required participants but had to be lowered down WD> more than once in view of declining numbers and competence on my WD> suggestion. Please remark, "I" do not change these numbers, it is an WD> FTSC-decision. Okay, good. WD> The nomination was not based on competence. I remember Carol once WD> nominating someone because there would be an imbalance of Z1-members WD> versus Z2. Total nonse of cours ... even Sean Dennis got nominated and WD> elected at one point for crying out loud. Yes, those tactics are also non-acceptable. 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? Again, these are serious questions, if you DC> don't mind answering them. Thanks in advance. WD> I think I cleared up the requirement issue, so did Michiel, it is an WD> FTSC-decision. Yes, thank you. WD> It would have been so easy to let the FTSC collapse, but I respect WD> Andrew Leary a lot and he wants to attempt to keep it going, So who am WD> I (or anybody else) to not allow him that opportunity? Understood, and agreed, in principle. But bending/breaking the rules and requirements as defined in the FTSC Charter *and* P4... Is that what you would call "allowing" it to continue, or "letting it continue regardless of rules or apparent interest level"? WD> The real challenge is going to come next year when the mandates of WD> Andrew Leary, Deon George, Tim Schattkowsky, and Jason Bock expire. 4 WD> out of 5 ... will they still be available and willing? It is up to the WD> FTSC, I think, to decide in the coming year which direction this story WD> takes... From what we've learned/discussed here, it has *ALWAYS* been up to the FTSC as to what direction it takes. However there has been shady influencing and forcing by people outside the FTSC which has been the reality. Will we let reality and RULES decide the direction this coming year, as it probably should be? WD> As for changing P4, it has been attempted in the past and while WD> technically feasable it was then viewed as a Z2-thing to grab power ... WD> Aaahhh ... the 'power' in Fidonet ... I wish people one day would WD> understand there is no power. The attempted changes were bare-minimum WD> and the procedure was run 100% as described in P4. It eventually came WD> down to a disturbing situation and depended upon one single RC to vote WD> against or in favor ... again, we were talking here about nothing basic WD> nor dramatic. That's unfortunate. Maybe in this day and age (when the "zone wars" have mostly subsided), it could happen? We could try... WD> Eventually that RC voted against and when I asked "why?" the answer was WD> "Because I could" ... After an effort which took weeks/months I lost my WD> appetite to try again. ACK. Thanks for having a civil conversation. Perhaps that can continue... Dan ... 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]