On 20 Nov 16 21:39, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Nicholas Boel:
NB>> I honestly don't believe writing any lines of code, whether it be NB>> for or not for FTN software, makes one bit of difference to an NB>> FTSC candidate, or member for that matter. The job of the FTSC is NB>> to document current practice. That is all.
CS> Hi Nick! Glad to meet you and it's funny that we meet minds in many CS> ways.
Meet me? Our systems have been connected and we have conversed both via email and echomail for years! :)
CS> What he didnt ask is one of the most important parts.
CS> Are you capable of working well with others and able to accept the CS> differences among zones?
Of course.
CS> Are you able to grasp that there are CS> critical differences among zones or are you mono-zonal?
Honestly, I don't see many (if any) critical differences among zones. A "zone" is only a number. I wish to continue working with everyone I currently do, as well as others in the future.
I'm linked to people in every zone here at this system, except zone 4 at the moment which I hope to change at some point when there's an active member willing to create said link.
CS> That one issue is where a lot of the FTSC fail. Like, a very imprtant CS> issue to one part of Z2 failed to get promoted to 'current practice' CS> even though it WAS current practice. It related to one segment of Z2 CS> and point handling. MVDL and i keyed on it but others were 'this is CS> not what we do here' so it's in the repository.
I think there are MANY things that are currently in the proposal stage, that should be re-looked at to make it standard. I've assisted new FTN developers start a new software (or continuation of an old software) only to stop after the standards are met, thinking they're done and everything is "by the book". Then when you start seeing things go wrong or not work, you have to point them to proposals that have been in use for years in order for things to work properly. This happened quite a bit in the last couple years of Mystic's tosser and mailer development. While it's still unfinished and apparantly has a couple sneering bugs (but what software doesn't?), I was able to witness quite a bit of it's progress, and with the help of many bug testers as well as Mark Lewis and myself helping point out proposals and other documentation and assisting in weeding through the current FTSC website, it has come very far for starting from scratch.. and I do hope development on it continues in the future as I will still be here to help him out any way I can.
While most of this happened in the past, and I didn't jot it down or anything, my memory fails me to most specifics we went through at this point (Mark may be able to help out with that), but by being a part of the FTSC, things like this can be brought up and discussed to possibly bring said proposal out of the storage chest in the attic to take another look at it. If some wording needs to be changed to suit everyone's preference, so be it.
Lastly, from the outside looking in, it seems there's a few currently "inactive" FTSC members, which in my opinion, should be replaced with "active" members that are willing to help out.
Regards, Nick
... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю." --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20160827 * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)
