Hello mark!

30 Jan 17 12:09, you wrote to me:

 KE>> You cannot change the document because the past is wrong in your/our
 KE>> current view.

 ml> someone needs to explain this to the FTSC, then... it seems that my
 ml> attempts have all been failures... there's been a lot of rope given,
 ml> though...

 Maybe they will read the above, especially now with your underscore added.

 I do not know if you can adress FTSC. The FTSC is formed by a number of
 well meaning volunteers, who all think that they can contribute to the
 documentation of Fidonet standards. I expect, that those willing to take
 a lead, have the best chance to get their view of the situation
 documented. But I also believe that a majority of members must agree on
 a document, to have it declared as a standard.

 So to get your ideas accepted, you will have to approach individuals in
 such a way, that they are not directly forced into a defence.

 That at least would be my approach.

 KE>> Programmers are stubborn people with strong opinions on how things
 KE>> should be done. The documentation should keep them at bay to ensure
 KE>> interconnectivity.

 ml> agreed... and when you get folks, even some FTSC members, grabbing
 ml> internet RFCs and using them to beat other FTSC members and FTN
 ml> programmers about the head and ears, then why can't they be used FTN
 ml> standards and proposals...

 Ones opinions are based on experiences from the past. When your past has a
 strong adherence to RFC's in it, one is bound to stick to that.
 It is just a Pavlov reaction in fear of a spanking or possibly getting a
 cookie.

Kees

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5