Hello Alexey!

06 Nov 19 01:12, you wrote to me:

 AV>>> Why? There was an excellent tradition to appoint it from the
 AV>>> FTSC members who had their term expired, and they were the only
 AV>>> people who were permitted to nominate themselves, as both RCs
 AV>>> and ZCs _must_ _not_ (as in FTA-1006) be FTSC members.
 AL>> I haven't seen that done formally since I've been a member of the
 AL>> FTSC.

 AV> Nice coincidence: it was last used in 2010, when you were first
 AV> elected.

That explains that.  I'm certainly open to reviving that tradition, along with 
possibly making other changes to the nomination and voting process to address 
your other concerns.

 AL>>>> Therefore, anyone interested in serving on the FTSC should
 AL>>>> solicit a nomination from an RC.
 AV>>> I suspect this would leave some good candidates out-of-board.
 AV>>> And instead pull in some real idiots (as F73 in ICD) without
 AV>>> any option to vote them out.
 AL>> Unfortunately, for years now the RCs have for the most part
 AL>> supported all candidates that were nominated.

 AV> Yes - mostly because they (in majority) don't really care.

Right.

 AL>> More often than not, expiring members end up being nominated
 AL>> again, just because they have been willing to serve in the past.

 AV> And this produces the most destructive effect of populating the FTSC
 AV> with mentally retarded^W^W ignoramii (is this the correct plural form
 AV> for the "ignoramus"?) instead of technical experts.

Unfortunately this will be difficult to counteract.  As long as the RCs are 
both the primary source of nominations and the voters, we are at their mercy 
with regards to their selections.

 AL>> Candidates are nominated in some cases for no reason other than
 AL>> to ensure that group  is represented.

 AV> We don't need disabled lesbian niggers or other "groups" here - we
 AV> need technical experts who are able to collect, process and document
 AV> the common technical practices.

Exactly.

Regards,

Andrew

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20180707