On 31 Dec 14 19:54, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Nicholas Boel:
CS> Pretty much the only one of 'note' was one that has been in use for 10 CS> years but was never risen to a standard and finally (with a split CS> vote) relegated to the reference library.
CS> It's the automated point assignment system, used almost exclusively by CS> western Europe and only parts of that. It was 4 or 5 for FTS (in CS> current use) and 6-7 for FRL (too little use I think was the main CS> reason they stated). Smile, I lost that vote if wondering as I've CS> supported it but I grant it has a small usership and always has.
CS> That it shifted in documentation to FRL doesnt mean the aooroved flags CS> or software have gone away. Only that a new author with new ideas CS> isn't expected to try to be compatible with the existing method. They CS> can use the data in the reference library if they wish or start with a CS> blank slate.
CS> There is another one on FTN address formatting but it is still under CS> discussion and as far as I can see, it is redundant as all the info in CS> it is covered elsewhere already. At least i didnt see anything not CS> covered elsewhere and no one else has pointed out something in there CS> only. If we find something, maybe we can move that line or so to one CS> of the existing spots to pull things together a bit better.
It seems you are one of the very few interested and willing to discuss FTSC related matters with the rest of the public that aren't a part of the seemingly secret society. Thanks for that.
I was only suggesting that it would be nice if others were on board with that same idea, rather than stopping the conversation and pushing interested parties to the website (which has happened to me a couple of times now) - which is completely against the whole idea of the "Fidonet community." While it's great to have everything on one site and in one place accessible to all, it doesn't help any discussion in this echo or elsewhere, really.
Even simply automated postings of revised and/or new documents in here would be nice, and give us something to read and possibly discuss (or ask questions about if some writings were misunderstood?) if it were interesting enough. But instead, keep this echo completely empty of discussion (the moderator does a good job of that since everything seems to be deemed "off topic" even when it has to do with the FTSC but he just doesn't want to talk about it) and point people at a website.
Anyhow, thanks again for your input. It is appreciated, even if not by everyone.
