NA> On 28 Nov 22 07:37:00, Dan Clough said the following to Andrew NA> Leary:
> AL> As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public > AL> concensus in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet > AL> SysOps to provide their input on this proposal.
DC> Who is suggesting that it be revised, and what reason is given as to why DC> that would be needed?
NA> Me for one.
Ack.
NA> There are not enough tech-people who want to be or are competent NA> to be FTSC paper tigers. The FTSC is a relic from the days when NA> there was sufficient tech-talent that could properly document NA> whatever was trendy in Fido at the time. There's been nothing NA> trendy since BinkD...
Okay, that makes sense to me. One thing that I have noticed lately in Fido is "mobile" access to echos, with software such as Telegram and Aftershock, which seems quite "trendy" to me. I'll withhold my opinion of such for an appropriate forum.
NA> In the last couple of elections there have been people elected to NA> the FTSC with gross misconceptions of what the FTSC does; or NA> people elected because they believe a politician is needed more NA> than tech talent.
I do recall the last one as having some controversy.
NA> It could be argued that the FTSC should be entirely disbanded now NA> and the documents put on Github or whatever repository but then NA> we have a question of who gets to maintain that to prevent NA> certain people from rewriting history or reinventing wheels.
Absolutely. You'd still need a committee/group who controls privileges on the Github project. Seems like work for the same thing we have now.
NA> Its better to have the absolute bare minimum of odd-numbered NA> tech-people to occasionally wipe the dust off the documents if NA> and when someone discovers some weird spelling mistake or NA> something open to misinterpretation.
