Re: Re: Fidonet
  By: Warpslide to Nick Andre on Tue Feb 25 2025 05:51 pm

Howdy,

 > How do we get the process started to do that?  Would it have to be initiated
 > from current FTSC members?

To be honest I dont think it could be "achieved" "democratically". When ever
anything about a standard, a process is brought up - it immediately starts a
shit fight, and ends with abuse.

IMHO, we need to be real - we live in the 21st century where things are done by
a motivated person, and adoption determines success.

 > This seems to be a bunch of fighting/bickering to elect a group of people
 > that seemingly do/produce nothing.  I'd be in favour of putting this up as a
 > wiki but archiving it would also work.

There is nothing stopping anybody putting up a "new way" of managing these
standards - it doesnt guarantee a resolution to the current situation (that
results in the bickering).

Heck I've thought of doing it, and the only reason I havent is a have too many
other things I "prefer" doing, because I get more satisifaction by doing them.

The existing standards are 30+ years old, anytime sometime comes up with ideas
to "improve" things, its shot down because its concluded it will break something
old, and IMHO, there is no benefit updating the "old" documents. That old
software wont change, the code is lost and/or the author is no longer with us.

Re-documenting something that wont lead to change as a result is a waste of
cycles IMHO.

Think about it, the requirement to join the FTSC is to demonstrate technical
support of this hobby - and the mission, fix spelling or "interpretation"
mistakes for a technology that is 30+ years old that isnt evolving. The more I
think about it, Im surprised that there are 4 people who have put their name in
the ring...


...oEoN
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
 * Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (618:510/2)