ml>NA> The role of the FTSC is to document new stuff that becomes accepted ml>NA> as standard,
ml> mmmm... no... the role of the FTSC is to document how FTN works...
I would call that 'semantics'. It's not a matter of being 'more right' than someone else who already is right.
ml> The FTSC administrator is appointed for a four year renewable term. """"""""" Impossible. An appointment is done by another person, at best he is elected.
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.
In a way that is a violation of P4 3.5 although you will respond that the FTSC is not guided by P4 where-upon I will answer that FTSC is metioned 3 times in P4 with te P4 being the supreme document of Fidonet, hence the FTSC falls under specific stipulations. Where-upon you ... [I like things to move forward so I usurped your persona already a bit ... 8-) ]< < < <
ml> It is recommended that a ml> successful candidate not carry any *C or *EC responsibilities during ml> the term of office.
Well, you know where that is going to take us. The current 'administrator' at times calls himself "coordinator", has bashed at least one RC that I know of in private netmail signing with "chairman" trying to force FTSC-things down his throat while 'enforcement' is not part of the FTSC-mandate ... and is an RC ... which he campaigned against ... until when he became an RC himself.
As a reminder, I declined my nomination because I am a *C.
An interesting matter which seems not to be covered by the document which you are quoting from is what happens when a standing 'administrator' who is up for re-election, runs and gets trashed ... in other words gets a vote of "no confidence" from the constituency ... When the voting RCs have no confidence, can such a person remain "coordinator" ?
ml> A successful candidate must receive ml> approval by at least a plurality of votes.
A clarification is required here. A plurality of all votes cast (including the abstentions) or a plurality of the 'Ayes' versus the 'Nays'.
You guys got work to do on such shabby definitions.
