BBS: TELESC.NET.BR Assunto: #1 in Google De: Michiel van der Vlist Data: Sun, 15 Mar 2026 17:30:23 +0100 ----------------------------------------------------------- Hello Dan, On Saturday March 14 2026 10:37, you wrote to me: 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. Consider this: Not only is 2:2/29 in violation of P4, it also is incomplient with the FTSC standards. In particular FTS-5000.005. So what we see is that in order to "save" the FTSC the FTSC standard is violated. Instigated by the IC/ZC2. Hold on to that thought... 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. You'r welcome. So it would not be all that hard to change it again and reduce the required number from five to three. But then what is the next step? reduce it to one? The lack of condidates is not realy the cause, it is a symptom. 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.When I was FTSC chairman I operated under the premisse that anyone can submit a proposal for discussion with the Fidonet comunity and then when it it picked up by developers and after due consideration it is promoted to a standard by the FTSC, it is binding. Or that at least it would be considered as such by the *C hierarchy. When that premise turned out to be false, it killed my motivation. *1) And so after due consideration I resigned. After that several FTSC members also were not available for another term. Writing good documentation is not a tivial task. It takes time and energy. Who wants to put time and energy in writing documentation when is can be shoved aside just like that by a decree from the "powers that be"? Just my EUR 0,02. *1) By the IC - without any consultation with the Fidonet community - who introduced the so called MOB nodes by decree. And forcing RCs to accept and process nodelist segments in violation of FTS-5000. Cheers, Michiel --- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555) ----------------------------------------------------------- [Voltar]