Text 6188, 87 rader
Skriven 2013-10-22 20:31:52 av mark lewis (1:3634/12.71)
     Kommentar till en text av Nick Andre
Ärende: FTSC Nominations
========================
On Tue, 22 Oct 2013, Nick Andre wrote to All:

 NA> On 21 Oct 13  20:17:23, Mark Lewis said the following to Ross
 NA> Cassell: 

ML> On Mon, 21 Oct 2013, Ross Cassell wrote to Ward Dossche:
ML> 
ML>  RC> Do we need a FTSC?
ML> 
ML> yes... for several reasons...
ML> 
ML>   1. to ensure that software conforms to the standards and proposals
ML>      they support.

 NA> Wrong. The FTSC's job is not to babysit products that do not
 NA> conform to  published standards.

no one said anything about babysitting, nick...

ML>      proposals they choose to support in their software.

 NA> Very rare. The published standards are fairly straightforward. 

really? then why does one have to test implementations against other software
to see how it/they work so they can be duplicated... even if those
implementations are not to the spec being followed? this does introduce
confusion and misunderstanding... eg: some folks believing that the husky
method of naming all bundles with different names and the same xx0 extension
instead of using the same base name and incrementing the xx0 extension to
xx1-Z...

ML>   3. to assign product ID codes to new software being developed.

 NA> Extremely rare.

i'm aware of at least two products which should have a PID assigned so that
other software that processes based on the PID in the PKT don't screw things
up... this situation was brought up recently in a developing package's support
area... the cause, as indicated by the reporting party, was that the PID in the
PKT indicated one package but this was another and the PKT format was not that
which was expected... that points to two problems... the main one being some
package expecting to process mail based on the package that supposedly created
the PKT rather than analyzing the PKT to determine which type it is and then
processing it...

ML> at least those three in addition to the updating and review of existing
ML> standards and proposals as well raising proposals to standards...

 NA> And how often does that happen again?

there are documents, now, that are "expired" because a FTSC has not reviewed
them and updated them or at least altered their expiration date... this type of
stuff was set up by the second FTSC in an effort to keep the FTSC alive and
having something to do to indicate activity...

 NA> Everyone else reading - I was once an elected FTSC member, and the
 NA> behavior of a few elected FTSC participants was far from their
 NA> elected purpose of managing existing technical documents. Ongoing
 NA> rants and raves about the most trivial  topics one can shake a
 NA> stick at. Very negative tones from those few members  who were
 NA> elected on their "technical contributions".

and no other parties are guilty as well? it takes two to tango, ya know...

 NA> I will reiterate what Michiel has stated - Anyone looking to join
 NA> the FTSC in  hopes of resurrecting our hobbby into the next
 NA> Facebook should think twice. 

it is not about ressurection... it is about doing the job of the FTSC and to
actively assist when asked or to offer assistance when problems are seen...

 NA> My opinion is to cut down the FTSC to one or two individuals. Thats
 NA> all thats  needed. And set clear term-limits. No exceptions. Make
 NA> the private FTSC echo public for total transparancy so those who
 NA> (blindly) vote in a candidate can see clearly how that candicate
 NA> conducts themself and "does their job". 

...

 NA> Stop making the FTSC sound like its curing cancer...

no one has ever intimated that, nick...

)\/(ark

--- FMail/Win32 1.60
 * Origin:  (1:3634/12.71)