home
***
CD-ROM
|
disk
|
FTP
|
other
***
search
/
BBS Toolkit
/
BBS Toolkit.iso
/
rbbs_pc
/
nosnal57.zip
/
FTSC.DOC
< prev
next >
Wrap
Text File
|
1992-04-21
|
4KB
|
74 lines
===========================================================================
BBS: HOTLine RBBS
Date: 04-16-92 (18:47) Number: 319
From: RICK MOORE Refer#: NONE
To: ALL Recvd: NO
Subj: PRODUCT CODE LIST Conf: (9) NETDEV
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm turning on this echo long enough to correct a couple of
misconceptions concerning the list of FTSC product codes and FTSC in
general.
First, codes are still being assigned by me. I have no outstanding
applications on my system at this time. I have assigned a code for
every legitimate application I have ever received. Applications
received during January and February of this year were processed very
slowly because FidoNet in general was receiving only an hour or two a
week of my time due to my work schedule. To those that waited
patiently, you have my apology and my thanks. However, that backlog
was cleared months ago and applications are being processed every
weekend.
Second, while I appreciate the thought behind Dale Barnes' effort, I
will not accept update requests from anyone except the author to whom
the code was issued, and only via net mail directly to my system.
Second or third hand information and rumors simply isn't good enough.
If Dale (who has not communicated with me on this issue) wishes to
help out, he can send net mail to those authors who he believes are
listed incorrectly urging them to send me an update to their listing.
Last, regarding the recent comments that FTSC is irrelevant. FTSC is
not here to lead software development, balance the federal budget, or
solve the problems in your love life for you. We exist to document
widespread existing practice. We are here to write documents that
help authors write programs compatible with current FidoNet
implementations. We publish new proposals sent to us (and we do have
a very widespread distribution network, reaching every FidoNet zone
within hours), but it is most definitely not our place to "adopt" any
of these proposals and cram them down the collective throat of
FidoNet. It is for you, the developer community, to develop new
ideas. It is for the members of FidoNet to decide which new features
are worth widespread adoption.
When a new idea is implemented widely enough to pass a two-thirds vote
of FTSC's members (most of whom are the very developers many of you
say we ignore), we publish it as a recommended standard. It's up to
the FidoNet *C structure, not FTSC, to actually require compliance if
they think it worthwhile.
Would you people really like FTSC to dictate to FidoNet how we should
proceed technically? Are you sure you'd feel the same way if we
adopted proposals other than those each of you personally favor?
As hard as it might be some of you to believe, I would be thrilled if
the any or all participants of this conference got off their
collective butts and actually implemented some of the proposals that
have been circulated here. However, I mean working code, not hot air.
It's great to make proposals, and FTSC will help publish and
distribute them if requested, but at some point it's time to end the
discussion and give one's ideas a real test in code.
I'm well aware that this is not the way things are done in the real
standards world. This is one of FidoNet's real strengths, not a
weakness, IMHO.
I very much encourage all of you to send me your thoughts on any
matter relevant to FTSC. I may not agree with you, but I'll honestly
consider your suggestions and will try to reply to all mail received.
Please do not enter replies to me here as I am not a regular
participant. I simply don't have the time.
--- Squish/2 v1.01
* Origin: Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem
(1:115/333)