I am fully aware that, as a very junior member of the Fidonet community, my voice should not have much weight in these proceedings. However, I feel the need to respond to certain things:
AV> AV>> Now, where can we look at the code written by you? git clone what? AV> SD> https://mbsebbs.org AV> AV> Well, let's look inside...
AV> Hmmm... fixing spelling is good, but is not what I'd call "writing the AV> code". Also, even while performing such a simple task, you had to AV> recover from fuqup with some files "added by accident", but had not do AV> anything to prevent these (and similar) fuqups in the future. AV> AV> I see you are not yet ready for participating in the FTSC.
I'd like to remind you of the specific wording of the selection process, sir:
"To be selected as a FTSC member, an individual must be a Fidonet node, and should be actively involved in Fidonet. *Examples* include having put out a Fidonet-related product or having updated a product in the preceding two years, or having experience as a Coordinator, Echomail Coordinator or mail or file Hub." (Emphasis on 'examples' by me)
"writing the code", as you put it, is not a hard requirement for FTSC membership. It is merely an example, and in fact, that specific example doesn't mention code at all, just "updated".
Not to mention the other ways in which Sean has fulfilled these examples! Remind me again who's Chief Editor of FIDOGAZETTE? Is this not a "Fidonet-related product"?
More importantly, these examples are only used to qualify the phrase "actively inolved in Fidonet." I daresay it would be difficult to convince anyone that Sean is *not* actively involved.
Basing membership solely on one's having 'written code' for Fidonet completely ignores both the letter and the spirit of the selection process.
Thank you for reading this far. Good day, gentlemen.
