DC> AL> As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus DC> AL> in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to DC> AL> provide their input on this proposal. DC> DC> Who is suggesting that it be revised, and what reason is given as to why DC> that would be needed?
Me for one.
There are not enough tech-people who want to be or are competent to be FTSC paper tigers. The FTSC is a relic from the days when there was sufficient tech-talent that could properly document whatever was trendy in Fido at the time. There's been nothing trendy since BinkD...
In the last couple of elections there have been people elected to the FTSC with gross misconceptions of what the FTSC does; or people elected because they believe a politician is needed more than tech talent.
It could be argued that the FTSC should be entirely disbanded now and the documents put on Github or whatever repository but then we have a question of who gets to maintain that to prevent certain people from rewriting history or reinventing wheels.
Its better to have the absolute bare minimum of odd-numbered tech-people to occasionally wipe the dust off the documents if and when someone discovers some weird spelling mistake or something open to misinterpretation.
Nick
--- Renegade vY2Ka2 * Origin: Joey, do you like movies about gladiators? (1:229/426)
