Re: FTS-1 and FTS-4
  By: Bj”rn Felten to Rob Swindell on Tue Nov 06 2018 10:33 pm

 >  RS> FTS-1 could be split up into probably 3 or 4 documents, at least, and
 >  RS> some of
 >  RS> those resulting documents would not really be relevant to the network
 >  RS> as
 > it
 >  RS> operates today.
 >
 >    Yes indeed. We really have to let go of all the old shit and think ahead,
 > with new programmers in mind. Having a gazillion documents doesn't really
 > encourage new programmers, it should be easy to get the basics first and
 > then  find the elaborate stuff needed later on.

Yup. I get occasional requests from prospective FTN developers about the inner
workings of mailers and tossers and such and that's part of my reasoning for
creating the wiki.synchro.net reference articles I have. That, and assisting my
future self on recalling how this stuff works when I need to know.

 >    I hope you'll be up for election?  8-)

FTSC chair? Nah. I was a member of the FTSC a while back and I really don't
recall anything constructive happening during that period. Some new docs have
come out of the FTSC since then which are helpful (so, that's good, and maybe a
credit to Mr. Vlist), but I don't find much enjoyment in the fight to get
documents corrected or published through the FTSC.

I would like to see more innovation in FTNs, but the battle against old
standards/software/people just takes the fun out of it for me. That's why I
prefer to innovate more in the realm of QWK, where I can innovate whenever I
like and no one complains.
--- SBBSecho 3.06-Linux