Subj : 2025 FTSC election
To : Nicholas Boel
From : Michiel van der Vlist
Date : Sun Feb 23 2025 10:59 am
Hello Nicholas,
On Saturday February 22 2025 08:08, you wrote to me:
>> As for me doing much of nothing, I invite everyone to check the
>> author's name on the documents published during my watch. There are
>> a substantial number with either my full name or "FTSC
>> administrator" on it.
NB> You were once very active. Then things got pretty stale for many
NB> years. When I got to be a part of as well as witness documents and
NB> proposals brought to the table and some trying to be raised to
NB> standards (which is the actual job of the FTSC)
No, that is NOT the job of the FTSC. The job of the FTSC is not to automatically raise every submitted proposal to a standard. The job of the FTSC is to document current practise. Some proposals make it to a standard and some do not. If a proposal documents standard practice that has not been covered yet by the FTSC or does it better than existting standards it can be raised to a standard by itself or be incorporated into an existing standard. If it proposes something new or different, the FTSC offers a platform where it can be discussed and an opportunity is given to the submitter to persuade developers to implement his/her ideas into their software. If/when as a result of that proces the proposed /becomes/ current practise the FTSC can raise it to a standard. If it does not become current practise, it does not make it to a standard and remains in the archives for future reference.
If you think different you have not understood what the job of the FTSC is.
NB> get completely shot down by you and others, that was the nail in the
NB> coffin right there.
So... it has been over six years since I resigned. If you thought "I did nothing" what stopped you from stepping forward to fill the vacancy that was left after my resignation? What stopped you from showing the Fidonet community that you could do a better job?
So2... Why are you arguing with me at all? I am not a candidate. Ask the candidates what THEY think the job of the FTSC is or should be.
>> I shall not deny that some of the bumps and bruises I got during
>> that period are still aching at times but me being mad about being
>> voted out of the chair is fake news. I was not voted out of the
>> chair, I resigned of my own initiative.
NB> Ah, my bad. Must not have been important enough for me to remember.
But you did "remember" that I was voted out That was "important enough"? .
NB> Was that about the time you held an election for yourself and got a
NB> bunch of flak for it?
Have you stopped beating your wife?
>> As for my issue with Tim, it certainly does count. Him posting from
>> a point number is just the tip of the elephant's trunk. Yes, thee
>> is an elephant in the room and so far no one will mention it or
>> even see it.
NB> Tim is a current author of software being used in Fidonet, and quite a
NB> few people already know that.
I know that too. I had a point who uses WinPoint. I followed the Winpoint area. That is how I discovered Tim's software is in violation of FTS-5003. I discussed it with him. He refused to make his software FTS-5003 complient. His argument? "My way is better". Hence my "pig headed".
Being the author of software however is not qualification for FTSC membership all by itself. There is the requirement of "node of good standing".
NB> I'm guessing since most people in this echo either know Tim, or know
NB> of his software, that where he posted from either went unnoticed or
NB> nobody cared (because they knew he has a valid Fidonet node).
He has NOT. This rule about posting from a node that lists the candidate as a sysop is not something frivolous that came out of thin air. The rule was introduced because of a candidate that posted as a user from the BBS of Janis Kracht and who was shown to NOT have an operational node from which he could send and receive mail.
This rule serves as a signal to expose such candidates. So far Tim has failed to comply with this rule.
There is an elephant in the room. Tim does NOT run a fully fledged fidonet node. 2:2/29 is a fake node. There is no contact information in the nodelist. There can not be because WinPoint can only make outgoing calls. Such software is fine for points, but not for "nodes of good standing".
Node 2:2/29 is a fake node. It can not accept incoming calls.
