Hello Michael.

09 Nov 02 00:16, you wrote to me:

Sheesh....

Policy 4 Section 2.4

2.4  How to Form a Network

(first bit cut to save space)

   2) A copy of the proposed network's nodelist segment.  This file should
   be attached to the message of application for a network number, and
   should use the nodelist format described in the current version of the
   appropriate FTSC publication.  Please elect a name that relates to your
   grouping, for example SoCalNet for nodes in the Southern California Area
   and MassNet West for the Western Massachusetts Area.  Remember if you
   call yourself DOGNET it doesn't identify your area.

 RR>> That is pretty clear to me then that the FTSC is the authority when
 RR>> it
 RR>> comes to nodelist flags.

 MG> The Coordinators have /no/ say at all, eh...?

The ZC has to some extent. No other *C has.

 MG> The FTSC means /nothing/ if what they propose is not accepted by the
 MG> *C's. The *C's are the final authority on what will and will not be used
 MG> as a flag in the nodelist, and what each flag means.

 MG> The *C's have the power to make any nodelist changes they want to, and
 MG> the FTSC is relegated to recording what has been accepted by them. If
 MG> the FTSC ignores the wishes of the Coordinators, they become useless to
 MG> this network.

 MG> Maybe this is at the root of the problem. Too many people have been
 MG> putting the cart before the horse in this network for /way/ too long a
 MG> time. The FTSC may fancy itself some sort of "authority"
based on some
 MG> perceived techno-geeky intellectual hierarchy (read bovine scatology)
 MG> expressed through the FTSC nomination and election process, but in
 MG> reality they are far less important in the decision making process than
 MG> the Coordinators, or even the end nodes, if enough of them protest
 MG> loudly enough for a change.

See text at top of message.

Cheers,
                Rick

... Pascal programmers do it with indentations.

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5 - Debian/GNU