On Fri Dec 15 2017 21:08:32, mark lewis wrote to Nick Andre:
NA>> Let me ask the non-technical people here. You know who you are. NA>> Tell me why we even need an FTSC anymore?
ml> interesting question...
Very.
NA>> nor does the FTSC "hold hands" with people who cannot grasp how NA>> to properly run mailers or cannot understand how a nodelist NA>> works.
ml> true... but it is the responsibility of all sysops to help others to ml> understand technical aspects of FTN communications...
If it's the responsibility of all sysops, then there's no job for the FTSC in that regard.
NA>> The role of the FTSC is to document new stuff that becomes NA>> accepted as standard,
ml> mmmm... no... the role of the FTSC is to document how FTN works... ml> period... some things are raised from proposals to standards when they ml> become "widespread in use" but there's no definition of "widespread ml> use"...
Making it kinda redundant these days, eh? No definition of widespread use anymore..
NA>> and to clean up/help Michiel revise existing documents. Like him NA>> or not, at the very least he keeps the interest going for NA>> maintaining them.
ml> The FTSC administrator is appointed for a four year renewable term.
ml> To be eligible for appointment, an individual must be a Fidonet ml> node, be actively involved in Fidonet, though not necessarily in a ml> programming context, and should have proven organizational skills. A ml> candidate need not be a member of the FTSC. It is recommended that a ml> successful candidate not carry any *C or *EC responsibilities during ml> the term of office.
Oh wait, what? Definite proven organizational skills, but.. the recommendation after that has failed for a long time.
ml> 1. Ensuring FTSC Mandate is adhered to. ml> 2. Facilitating communications links between members. ml> 3. Maintaining document distribution links. ml> 4. Coordinating all membership nominations and voting. ml> 5. Developing Working Groups as required. ml> 6. Ensuring that the FTSC seeks, accepts and responds to public ml> input. ml> 7. Assigning FSP numbers to new Standards Proposals.
Nobody can argue Michiel does not do any of the above, and actually.. is and would be the best at it in the future.
ml> nothing in there about revising any documents or driving that aspect ml> of documenting FTN operations......
Nope, that's the job of the members.. and should be.
NA>> But it would be very logical going on 2018 now to "call it day" NA>> and dissolve the FTSC altogether; it is highly unlikely a new NA>> Fido technology is going to be adapted like BinkD was.
NA>> The existing documents for the most common, popular transfer NA>> methods and storage of Fido mail is clear enough that a developer NA>> can write his own mailer, tosser, nodelist compiler, editor etc.
NA>> What else is there now to do? Other than patchwork?
NA>> Cue now to the noise...
ml> meh...
By that reponse, you partially agree, but don't want to argue about it. Sure there's still new software being developed, but most go by the current standards. THEN as GAF sysops we have to intervene and try to show them the new stuff that apparantly never made it to standard, even though they should have been (we see people complain about it on a daily basis!) and some of these proposals get forced down the throats of new programmers by people in the FTSC.
If it's not a standard, they usually don't initially implement it. When people bitch that it's not there, programmer says "well it's only a proposal!" and, there you have that circular dependency rearing it's head again. ;(
Regards, Nick
... "Не знаю. Я здесь только работаю." --- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20170303 * Origin: thePharcyde_ distribution system (Wisconsin) (1:154/10)
