*** Quoting Michael Grant from a message to Carol Shenkenberger ***

 CS> I already knew it).  The FTSC documents and clarifies existing
 CS> standards.  They also accept proposals for new ones but until in
 CS> actual use someplace, they stay as 'proposals' (FSP).

MG> The proposals need to be clearly documented, and the experience of bot
MG> developers /and/ end users of the proposed new functions need to be ta
MG> into consideration before anything should be declared a "standard".

True but that's why they are sent out (once that feature is working again
at ¨least).  Lots of comments and redrafts possible.

MG> to decide on what is and isn't a standard. Fidonet needs an open stand
MG> process, similar to what goes on in the Internet with the RFC document
MG> All members of Fidonet should be allowed to contribute their input.

All members are allowed to contribute.  Writing the final specs though
tends to ¨never happen if the committee is too big.  Kinda like re-writing
P4.  Too many ¨inputs and not enough agreement.


MG> I have even bolder ideas. Watch for them in the Fidonews, if Bjorn dec
MG> to publish what I've sent. If my ideas are not accepted in Fidonet, I
MG> fully intend to implement them in SkyNet, and let the FTN users decide
MG> which way is better.

Ok!  I'll be waiting for that!

 CS> Grin, they just document.  Thats all.

MG> Unfortunately, as we see here, some continue to be deluded on that poi

Yeah, and some claim that because no limits were imposed by the FTSC, that
¨means the software is broken...
                                       xxcarol

--- Telegard v3.09.g2-sp4