It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members in 2.1.3
needs to be reduced.
Andrew Leary wrote to All <=-
Hello everybody!
It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is
needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members
in 2.1.3 needs to be reduced.
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus
in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to
provide their input on this proposal.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus
in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to
provide their input on this proposal.
Who is suggesting that it be revised, and what reason is given as to why that would be needed?
Who is suggesting that it be revised, and what reason is given as to why that would be needed?
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
Hello everybody!
It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members in 2.1.3
needs to be reduced.
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to provide
their input on this proposal.
Hello everybody!
It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members in 2.1.3 needs to be
reduced.
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to provide their input on this proposal.
Regards,
Andrew
FTSC Administrator
Ward Dossche wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Who is suggesting that it be revised, and what reason is given as to why that would be needed?
I have suggested that.
The reason being that of the 10 current mandates 7 expire end of
March. There will be an election, but if not at least 4 people
get nominated and elected, under current rules the FTSC as a
Fidonet-unit expires.
The change makes sense ... no ? I would even drop the lower
treshold to 3, but I'm not involved in that part of the process
...
Nick Andre wrote to Dan Clough <=-
On 28 Nov 22 07:37:00, Dan Clough said the following to Andrew
Leary:
Who is suggesting that it be revised, and what reason is given as to why 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 Andre wrote to Andrew Leary <=-
On 28 Nov 22 06:39:07, Andrew Leary said the following to All:
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
Seconded.
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.
Hello everybody!
It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members in 2.1.3
needs to be reduced.
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to provide
their input on this proposal.
Nick Andre wrote to Dan Clough <=-
On 28 Nov 22 16:08:00, Dan Clough said the following to Nick
Andre:
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.
I should of clarified... trendy as in, a Fido tech thing that
benefits the internal workings of the network. Something that
many Sysops worldwide accepted as solving a problem that was
worth documenting as a standard.
Moving packets with a protocol like BinKD as opposed to dialup or
the freaking mess that was TransX emails, FTP etc.... BinkD was
tech that had a significant contribution to improving mail flow.
But Telegram.... mehhhhh... I dunno. I know some people like it
but it comes across as being one persons pet project. One
person's board goes down and the gating stops. Its not really a
protocol, it comes across more as a gateway by one single person.
There are many Sysops who don't really see that benefit.
Might have been nice to post "2.1.3" for those of us who don't know
every section of every document inside out, however from reading the discussion and points made by my fellow sysops, I shall cast my yay
vote for the proposal whether it be an official or unofficial tally.
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to provide
their input on this proposal.
Hello everybody!
It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members in 2.1.3 needs to be reduced.
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to provide their input on this proposal.
Hello everybody!
It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members in 2.1.3 needs to be reduced.
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to provide their input on this proposal.
Regards,
Andrew
FTSC Administrator
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20220504
* Origin: From the Desk of the FTSC Administrator (1:320/219)
I should of clarified... trendy as in, a Fido tech thing that benefits
the internal workings of the network. Something that many Sysops
worldwide accepted as solving a problem that was worth documenting as
a standard.
I should of clarified... trendy as in, a Fido tech thing thatOne interesting thing I've seen that could have been "trendy"
benefits the internal workings of the network. Something that
many Sysops worldwide accepted as solving a problem that was
worth documenting as a standard.
in that sense is the FGHI-URL specification. But I AFAIK it
has only been (partially) implemented by a few programs...
Hello everybody!
It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members in 2.1.3 needs to b reduced.
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to provide their input on this proposal.
Regards,
Andrew
FTSC Administrator
Andrew Leary wrote to All <=-
Hello everybody!
It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is
needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members
in 2.1.3 needs to be reduced.
I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus
in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to
provide their input on this proposal.
Who is suggesting that it be revised, and what reason is given as to why that would be needed?
... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
One interesting thing I've seen that could have been "trendy" inIt was never implemented completely, so there never was even reference implementation, not to mention common practice.
that sense is the FGHI-URL specification. But I AFAIK it has only
been (partially) implemented by a few programs...
I only know about Golded-NSF and HotdogEd (and some sites like fido.g0x.ru, wfido.ru), that have implemented a small part of the
spec, the area:// schema with msgid filter.
But even if it was just that, I think it's a very interesting idea.
I only know about Golded-NSF and HotdogEd (and some sites like
fido.g0x.ru, wfido.ru), that have implemented a small part of the
spec, the area:// schema with msgid filter.
There are a few fido editors which support this, specifically SimpleX (2:5061/120), HellEd (2:5030/1520.9), FGHI URL gate (WebBBS), WFido (2:5020/556.1) and Fidofox (Mithgol, see below).
This might be a great idea indeed, but in Russian-speaking world it
kinda has a negative connotation though. It all started at the point
when a guy who called himself "Mithgol the Webmaster" coined a phrase "hypertext FidoNet". Moreover, he raised this topic during the online session with the Russian prime minster Medvedev (https://youtu.be/RSrr3JR4L20, Russian only). Since then, the term hypertext FidoNet or Mithgol himself have come sorta toxic topic.
| Sysop: | Weed Hopper |
|---|---|
| Location: | Clearwater, FL |
| Users: | 14 |
| Nodes: | 6 (0 / 6) |
| Uptime: | 230:47:20 |
| Calls: | 55 |
| Calls today: | 1 |
| Files: | 50,127 |
| D/L today: |
26 files (3,281K bytes) |
| Messages: | 275,351 |