Re: Re: challenging the candidates
  By: Nicholas Boel to Carol Shenkenberger on Mon Nov 21 2016 08:49 am

 NB> Hello Carol,

 NB> On 20 Nov 16 21:39, Carol Shenkenberger wrote to Nicholas Boel:

 NB>>> I honestly don't believe writing any lines of code, whether it be
 NB>>> for or not for FTN software, makes one bit of difference to an
 NB>>> FTSC candidate, or member for that matter. The job of the FTSC is
 NB>>> to document current practice. That is all.

 CS>> Hi Nick!  Glad to meet you and it's funny that we meet minds in many
 CS>> ways.

 NB> Meet me? Our systems have been connected and we have conversed both via
 NB> email and echomail for years! :)

Yeah but not as FTSC! 

FTSC since about 2002 got the idea that a 'code writing programmer' was some
sort of better member. It was exclusely from Z2 but only a small part of Z2
thought it a requirement.

Fact is some of them were good but most didn't pan out as active members.

 CS>> What he didnt ask is one of the most important parts.

 CS>> Are you capable of working well with others and able to accept the
 CS>> differences among zones?

 NB> Of course.

 CS>> Are you able to grasp that there are
 CS>> critical differences among zones or are you mono-zonal?

 NB> Honestly, I don't see many (if any) critical differences among zones. A
 NB> "zone" is only a number. I wish to continue working with everyone I
 NB> currently do, as well as others in the future.

 NB> I'm linked to people in every zone here at this system, except zone 4 at
 NB> the moment which I hope to change at some point when there's an active
 NB> member willing to create said link.


Find Z4 currently in Asian_link.  Their main issue is stable links. They also
have historically code page issues but do not meantion them as often. They seem
able to work with what is presented in code pages.  I have never seen a Z4
person ask others to change code page to suit them.

 CS>> That one issue is where a lot of the FTSC fail.  Like, a very
 CS>> imprtant issue to one part of Z2 failed to get promoted to 'current
 CS>> practice' even though it WAS current practice. It related to one
 CS>> segment of Z2 and point handling.  MVDL and i keyed on it but others
 CS>> were 'this is not what we do here' so it's in the repository.

 NB> I think there are MANY things that are currently in the proposal stage,
 NB> that should be re-looked at to make it standard. I've assisted new FTN
 NB> developers start a new software (or continuation of an old software) only
 NB> to stop after the standards are met, thinking they're done and everything
 NB> is "by the book". Then when you start seeing things go wrong or not work,
 NB> you have to point them to proposals that have been in use for years in
 NB> order for things to work properly. This happened quite a bit in the last
 NB> couple years of Mystic's tosser and mailer development. While it's still
 NB> unfinished and apparantly has a couple sneering bugs (but what software
 NB> doesn't?), I was able to witness quite a bit of it's progress, and with
 NB> the help of many bug testers as well as Mark Lewis and myself helping
 NB> point out proposals and other documentation and assisting in weeding
 NB> through the current FTSC website, it has come very far for starting from
 NB> scratch.. and I do hope development on it continues in the future as I
 NB> will still be here to help him out any way I can.

I'm up for re-electiom just like you are for election. So far Mystics's
netmail bugs seem to have been in documention
(grin)

  xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.12-Win32