2022 FTSC election, call for nominations...
Standing members may be nominated Fidonet-wide by all of the
following methods:
1. Any RC.
2. A nominating committee established for the purpose by the FTSC.
3. A nominating committee established for the purpose by the ZCC.
A nominating committee may not consist of any current member or
officer of the FTSC.
Question for the ZCC is if we value or not the availability of such a
body as the FTSC. There may be a point where as a group, the ZCC if it chooses continuity of the FTSC will have to look out for prospective members and take-up its role as a nominating committee to avoid the FTSC-membership to drop below the mimimum treshold of "7".
May I invite some thoughts here by the membership?
members and take-up its role as a nominating committee to avoid the FTSC-membership to drop below the mimimum treshold of "7".
members and take-up its role as a nominating committee to avoid the NA>WD> FTSC-membership to drop below the mimimum treshold of "7".
Why is the minimum 7?
My thing is the FTSC hasn't done a whole lot lately, but I don't think it's blame for that either. There simply isn't that much to do ... but in my opinion that's not a reason to let it expire.
In the past I always advocated to create such a nominating committee but th was oposition from Janis not to do that ...
Well we seem to have people elected into the FTSC with unrealistic expectations. It sounds bad but personally I feel I (or other likeminded tech-people) have to stick around because if not, the FTSC will evolve
into that enforcing body and the know-it-alls will have their way with rediculous packet standards or the merging of Fido with Internet.
On 05 Feb 22 10:02:20, Ward Dossche said the following to All Zcs:
members and take-up its role as a nominating committee to avoid the FTSC-membership to drop below the mimimum treshold of "7".
Why is the minimum 7?
Nick
On 05 Feb 22 14:27:24, Ward Dossche said the following to Nick Andre:
My thing is the FTSC hasn't done a whole lot lately, but I don't think i blame for that either. There simply isn't that much to do ... but in my opinion that's not a reason to let it expire.
In the past I always advocated to create such a nominating committee but was oposition from Janis not to do that ...
Well we seem to have people elected into the FTSC with unrealistic expectations. It sounds bad but personally I feel I (or other likeminded tech-people) have to stick around because if not, the FTSC will evolve into that enforcing body and the know-it-alls will have their way with rediculous packet standards or the merging of Fido with Internet.
Nick
Love 'm or hate 'm but I for one would like to have Alex Shakaylo back
into the FTSC.
Same feel here. ZC's became invited because of a near call when I was in Japan. They wanted to force something that would have decimated (at that time) the operations of Z3 and Z1. It was not a pretty time.
Love 'm or hate 'm but I for one would like to have Alex Shakaylo back
into the FTSC.
I meant to say Alexey Vissarionov ...
But ... about the formation of a nominating committee ... I would like to g some support from either or all of the current ZCs so that we may inject so talent into the FTSC and eventually get rid of the lurkers ...
Please ?
Please explain to me what is trying to be accomplished here... are we redefining the membership minimum requirements?
2022 FTSC election, call for nominations...
Standing members may be nominated Fidonet-wide by all of the
following methods:
1. Any RC.
2. A nominating committee established for the purpose by the FTSC.
3. A nominating committee established for the purpose by the ZCC.
A nominating committee may not consist of any current member or
officer of the FTSC.
Anything which supports what we discussed about never allowing the FTSC
to be some Standards Police.
Carol,
Same feel here. ZC's became invited because of a near call when I was i Japan. They wanted to force something that would have decimated (at tha time) the operations of Z3 and Z1. It was not a pretty time.
That rings a bell ... but I can't remember the exact nature of the potential conflict anymore. Are you sure about the Z1 and Z3 units?
Anyway ... I have been early involved in the FTSC-operations after I was elected for the first time as a ZC. The understanding was that the FTSC is n an enforcing-body but in specific cases the *C-structure could facilitate an enforcement ... without knowing about the goings-on in the FTSC a ZC could n be expected to take initiatives ... upon which I requested access which was granted .... this was waaaaay before you were elected for the first time ... At that moment I think the other ZCs did not follow ...
\%/@rd
On 07 Feb 22 01:00:19, Ward Dossche said the following to Nick Andre:
But ... about the formation of a nominating committee ... I would like t some support from either or all of the current ZCs so that we may inject talent into the FTSC and eventually get rid of the lurkers ...
Please ?
Please explain to me what is trying to be accomplished here... are we redefining the membership minimum requirements? I would be open to discussio on this or lowering the minimum members required for a barely functional FTS
Anything which supports what we discussed about never allowing the FTSC to b some Standards Police.
Nick
Don't know anout that but you weren't there at the Japan time as far as I knew.
Are you reading here? (you also got my question via netmail)
Are you reading here? (you also got my question via netmail)
With variable frequency.
On the question of FTSC continuity, if candidates can be found I'd like
to see it continue even if nothing normally happens just so that the
option is there if/when the mood strikes.
If the FTSC wants to lower the minimum membership limit perhaps they can compensate by requiring a ZC/RC or three to approve before issuing new documents?
I have no issues with the ZCC being/appointing a nominating committee but
I can't really help you with candidates as I'm not closely following the goings on.
I can query Z3 and see if there's any interest. The only
person that comes to mind is Paul Hayton, he's at least enthusiastic
enough to start and run his own othernet fairly recently.
Thank you for that, so there are 2 ZCs out of 4 seeing it that way.
Nick, are you making it a majority? Or Manuel?
- This is to help the FTSC and therefore Fido by electing talent-first - demonstrated talent maintaining/writing FTN software, not general know-it-all talent the likes of Paul Hayton, lowercase Mark Lewis, "Oli"
or Deon George.
For example; Rob Swindell, James Coyle, Ozz Nixon, Dale Barnes, the Winpoint guy have demonstrated talent writing mailers and tossers.
Having them as members cuts down the "noise factor" significantly by focusing on "tech".
- That such elected talent will be to be either on stand-by to fix the wording of existing documents or document whatever new trend as a
standard or proposal (ie. whats happening with embedded files in
messages being discussed in Ftsc-public could be considered good merit
for a proposal)
- That such talent or anyone else involved will NOT usurp the FTSC to become the Standards Police.
- That 7 members is unrealistic, unnecessary and should be reduced to 3 given what is being discussed.
We do not need Hubs, past hubs, Hubs of othernets or politicians as FTSC members. We do need ZC's to oversee the FTSC to ensure it does not become the Standards Police.
If these three conditions are met... then yes from me.
I'll get in touch with James and Peter and query their feelings. If you're adamant about Ozz, I'll contact hem too ...
Is that a good basis to continue?
Carol,
Don't know anout that but you weren't there at the Japan time as far as knew.
I was not "where" during your Japan days?
\%/@rd
Sysop: | Fercho |
---|---|
Lugar: | La Plata, Buenos Aires |
Usuarios: | 32 |
Nodos: | 10 (0 / 10) |
Uptime: | 54:30:43 |
Llamadas: | 107 |
Archivoss: | 15,607 |
Mensajes: | 31,392 |