I nominate Markus Reschke (hope i spelled that right) 2:240/1661 for
FTSC chair.
I nominate Markus Reschke (hope i spelled that right) 2:240/1661 forThanks! But I'm wearing too many hats already and therefore I have to decline politely.
FTSC chair.
Hi Carol!
Nov 12 14:24 2018, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to All:
I nominate Markus Reschke (hope i spelled that right) 2:240/1661 for
FTSC chair.
Thanks! But I'm wearing too many hats already and therefore I have to decline politely.
I nominate Markus Reschke (hope i spelled that right) 2:240/1661
for FTSC chair.
Thanks! But I'm wearing too many hats already and therefore I have
to decline politely.
Then, possibly, Nick Andre could decline as well...
I nominate Markus Reschke (hope i spelled that right) 2:240/1661
for FTSC chair.
Thanks! But I'm wearing too many hats already and therefore I have
to decline politely.
Then, possibly, Nick Andre could decline as well...Nick isnt running. He only offered to host the web repository site
which is not the same thing.
Then, possibly, Nick Andre could decline as well...Nick isnt running. He only offered to host the web repository site AV>CS> which is not the same thing.
Yes, I see - he's totally unrelated to FTSC.
Yes, I see - he's totally unrelated to FTSC.As he is eligible for election as the administrator if someone
eligible to nominate nominates him, he is very much related.
Just as I and any other nodelisted sysop.
Anyway, *Cs _should_ _not_ be neither members nor administrator.
In general, that should be changed to "must not".
Anyway, *Cs _should_ _not_ be neither members nor administrator.
In general, that should be changed to "must not".
Anyway, *Cs _should_ _not_ be neither members nor administrator.Why not? And please no "Because it says so".
In general, that should be changed to "must not".
The FTSC-administrator is a technical non-political job.
In view of the dwindling numbers (since 2000 something we lost
like 97% of the listed sysops) we're getting close to the point
where "beggars can't be choosers"
and one should be happy even just for getting volunteers for a
particular job.
Trust me ... as a ZC been there, done that, got the T-shirt.
I bet whether I'd nominate someone from R50 (and it's much easier to find a volunteer there), the respectable public here will spit the shit...
In general, that should be changed to "must not".
That would work if we would have more active nodes.
... After all, this is why the ZCs have a standing invitation to take
part of the FTSC work.
... After all, this is why the ZCs have a standing invitation to take
part of the FTSC work.
Really ??
... After all, this is why the ZCs have a standing invitation to BF>BF>> take part of the FTSC work.
Really ??
Yes, really. Give or take some unfortunate mishaps. 8-)
On 11-13-18 17:01, Alexey Vissarionov <=-
spoke to Ward Dossche about Nominations open <=-
As he is eligible for election as the administrator if someone
eligible to nominate nominates him, he is very much related.
Just as I and any other nodelisted sysop.
Anyway, *Cs _should_ _not_ be neither members nor administrator.
In general, that should be changed to "must not".
... After all, this is why the ZCs have a standing invitation to take
part of the FTSC work.
Really ??
... After all, this is why the ZCs have a standing invitation to
take part of the FTSC work.
Really ??
Yes, really. Give or take some unfortunate mishaps. 8-)
Let's not re-write history:
1) First of all, I really had to argue a lot like around 10 years ago
to become linked on the argumentation "How can you expect cooperation
from ZCs if they are not linked and involved?". It was not automatic.
2) The contributions from ZC1 and ZC2 in said echo are voluntarily and deliberatly scrapped by Michiel van der Vlist who is incompetent at leaving his personal grudges at the entrance door of something which should be technical.
If the FTSC really wants ZCs to assist in reaching the FTSC mission statement, then a few of its members badly need to re-evaluate what they're doing there and consider not avoiding the issue of one of its members going over the cliff.
Hi Alexey!
Nov 13 17:01 2018, Alexey Vissarionov wrote to Ward Dossche:
Anyway, *Cs _should_ _not_ be neither members nor administrator.
In general, that should be changed to "must not".
That would work if we would have more active nodes. The current situation calls for a compromise.
Anyway, *Cs _should_ _not_ be neither members nor administrator.
In general, that should be changed to "must not".
That would work if we would have more active nodes. The currentExactly. I still feel strongly that you are a good candidate.
situation calls for a compromise.
There may be others but the current nodelist shows no complications
with you running when I scan for your last name.
There may be others but the current nodelist shows no complications AV>CS> with you running when I scan for your last name.
You are R24EC - but that's much better than Andrew's R16C, N142C, N320C
and N322C hats on one head.
Let's not re-write history:
1) First of all, I really had to argue a lot like around 10 years ago ml>WD> to become linked on the argumentation "How can you expect cooperation ml>WD> from ZCs if they are not linked and involved?". It was not automatic.
who was that FTSC Chairperson?
funny that... he was the one, at one time, pushing very hard that
politics be left at the door...
If the FTSC really wants ZCs to assist in reaching the FTSC mission ml>WD> statement, then a few of its members badly need to re-evaluate what ml>WD> they're doing there and consider not avoiding the issue of one of its ml>WD> members going over the cliff.
that member is stepping down at this time...
@REPLY: 6730.ftsc_pub@1:275/100 205371bd
@MSGID: 2:5020/545 5bee9f80
@CHRS: CP866 2
@TZUTC: 0300
Good ${greeting_time}, Markus!
15 Nov 2018 20:46:26, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to you:
Anyway, *Cs _should_ _not_ be neither members nor
administrator. In general, that should be changed to "must
not".
That would work if we would have more active nodes. The current
situation calls for a compromise.
Exactly. I still feel strongly that you are a good candidate.
+1
There may be others but the current nodelist shows no
complications with you running when I scan for your last name.
You are R24EC - but that's much better than Andrew's R16C, N142C,
N320C and N322C hats on one head.
Anyway, *Cs _should_ _not_ be neither members nor
administrator. In general, that should be changed to "must
not".
That would work if we would have more active nodes. The current
situation calls for a compromise.
Exactly. I still feel strongly that you are a good candidate.
+1
There may be others but the current nodelist shows no
complications with you running when I scan for your last name.
You are R24EC - but that's much better than Andrew's R16C, N142C,For the record, I am actively seeking to divest myself of any/all
N320C and N322C hats on one head.
of the NC hats;
the capable candidates that I've asked thus far have said no thanks.
I have no trace, but my FTSC-log starts December 5th 2010 when the echo was created here and I really had to argue to get access; at that time I had been a ZC for slightly over 14 years and never "been invited". I strongly expect that ZCs were only granted access after I got in and people are re-writing history.
I have messages in the FTSC echo by Janis from 2003 and by you from
2008, so I think you remember wrong.
My wife claims we're married, but I have no recollection either.
Exactly. I still feel strongly that you are a good candidate. There
may be others but the current nodelist shows no complications with you
running when I scan for your last name.
For the record, I am actively seeking to divest myself of any/all of
the NC hats; the capable candidates that I've asked thus far have
said no thanks.
+1
There may be others but the current nodelist shows no complications
with you running when I scan for your last name.
You are R24EC - but that's much better than Andrew's R16C, N142C,
N320C and N322C hats on one head.
You are R24EC - but that's much better than Andrew's R16C, N142C,
N320C and N322C hats on one head.
+1
the capable candidates that I've asked thus far have said no thanks.
Translate that to Russian, and you'll get exactly the common answer
from our sysops who were asked by me if they are ready to serve as a
FTSC chairman :-)
There's also a life outside of fidonet. ;) One of my other "hats" is a quite successful OSHW project for example.
the capable candidates that I've asked thus far have said no thanks.I've got the same answer from my candidates.
AndrewBye/2 Torsten
For the record, I am actively seeking to divest myself of any/all
of the NC hats; the capable candidates that I've asked thus far
have said no thanks.
I had the same problem when I became RC17 - finally found a willing sucker//// volunteer.
15 Nov 2018 20:46:26, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to you:
Anyway, *Cs _should_ _not_ be neither members nor administrator.
In general, that should be changed to "must not".
That would work if we would have more active nodes. The current
situation calls for a compromise.
Exactly. I still feel strongly that you are a good candidate.
+1
Let's not re-write history:
1) First of all, I really had to argue a lot like around 10 years
ago to become linked on the argumentation "How can you expect
cooperation from ZCs if they are not linked and involved?". It was
not automatic.
who was that FTSC Chairperson?
I have no trace,
2019,that member is stepping down at this time...
If we're talking about the same member, his mandate is expiring Dec.4
the end of next year. Hence that member is not stepping down.
BTW, have you noticed the mandates of the following people are
expiring Dec.19th of this year
and flash-elections are required to reconfirm or replace them?
I have no trace, but my FTSC-log starts December 5th 2010 when the
echo was created here and I really had to argue to get access; at
that time I had been a ZC for slightly over 14 years and never "been
invited". I strongly expect that ZCs were only granted access after I
got in and people are re-writing history.
I have messages in the FTSC echo by Janis from 2003 and by you from
2008, so I think you remember wrong.
I have messages in the FTSC echo by Janis from 2003 and by you from
2008, so I think you remember wrong.
This has hapopened to me before.
My wife claims we're married, but I have no recollection either.
Exactly. I still feel strongly that you are a good candidate.
There may be others but the current nodelist shows no complications
with you running when I scan for your last name.
There's also a life outside of fidonet. ;) One of my other "hats" is a quite successful OSHW project for example.
For the record, I am actively seeking to divest myself of any/all of
the NC hats; the capable candidates that I've asked thus far have
said no thanks.
I had the same problem when I became RC17 - finally found a willing sucker//// volunteer.
There's also a life outside of fidonet. ;) One of my other "hats" is
a quite successful OSHW project for example.
Ok! Not all of us have time but granted, this one is a 1 hour a week job.
If it stays this way, may have to say I will run though I feel there
are better contenders than me. I feel I am 'low man on the totem
pole' in some areas of it. I would leave the web site where it is for example. I do have a good grasp of all zones actual interactions (as opposed to just reading some antiquated text file on how it is
'supposed to be done').
We no longer have the luxury of selecting from the non-*C set as you
see. Further more, we have not for some time and we've not seen any conflicts when someone was FTSC and 'someting else'.
There may be others but the current nodelist shows no complications
with you running when I scan for your last name.
You are R24EC - but that's much better than Andrew's R16C, N142C,Thanks, but I simply don't have the time.
N320C and N322C hats on one head.
If there is a conflict, it may be in the EP1 that is only used in Z2 in
any documented form and seems to deal mostly with *EC type things.
and flash-elections are required to reconfirm or replace them?
flash elections? never heard of such and they're certainly not defined in the FTSC procedures documents...
BTW, have you noticed the mandates of the following people are
expiring Dec.19th of this year
yes...
and flash-elections are required to reconfirm or replace them?
flash elections? never heard of such and they're certainly not defined in the FTSC procedures documents... there is currently discussion on-going about how to handle the situation...
There's also a life outside of fidonet. ;) One of my other "hats"
is a quite successful OSHW project for example.
Ok! Not all of us have time but granted, this one is a 1 hour a
week job.
... and if you add up all the just-one-hour jobs you'll end up with a whole day. ;)
If it stays this way, may have to say I will run though I feel there
are better contenders than me. I feel I am 'low man on the totem
pole' in some areas of it. I would leave the web site where it is
for example. I do have a good grasp of all zones actual
interactions (as opposed to just reading some antiquated text file
on how it is 'supposed to be done').
Your wish shall be granted. :)
We no longer have the luxury of selecting from the non-*C set as you
see. Further more, we have not for some time and we've not seen any
conflicts when someone was FTSC and 'someting else'.
Have you forgotten what happened in the private FTSC conference when an invited guest started the topic "Hats worn" on 7 Oct 2017?
Carol,
If there is a conflict, it may be in the EP1 that is only used in Z2
in any documented form and seems to deal mostly with *EC type
things.
Even in Z2 EP1 only surfaces when someone wants to stirr political shit. You know when and where that happened last.
References to it I catalogue as a part of the ancient Zone-warz which I hope are gone now with Nick Andre.
On 11-17-18 11:24, Carol Shenkenberger <=-
spoke to Alexey Vissarionov about Nominations open <=-
If there is a conflict, it may be in the EP1 that is only used in Z2
in any documented form and seems to deal mostly with *EC type things.
I'll have to find a copy to read over but thats the same thing probably most outside Z2 would need to do to see if EP1 has additional limits
the rest of us are not aware of.
| Sysop: | digital man |
|---|---|
| Location: | Riverside County, California |
| Users: | 1,037 |
| Nodes: | 15 (0 / 15) |
| Uptime: | 42:18:06 |
| Calls: | 734 |
| Calls today: | 8 |
| Files: | 95,167 |
| D/L today: |
10,624 files (517M bytes) |
| Messages: | 298,597 |