2025 FTSC standing member election, call for votes
==================================================
----------------------------------------------
| Name | Node nr | Yes| No |
|----------------------|-------------|----|----|
| Deon George | 3:633/509 | X | |
| Andrew Leary | 1:320/219 | X | |
| Tim Schattkowsky | 2:2/29 | X | |
| Jason Bock | 1:267/310 | X | |
----------------------------------------------
The List of nominated and accepted candidates:
* Deon George (3:633/509), nominated Feb-1 by Jay Harris (RC12)
* Andrew Leary (1:320/219), nominated Feb-2 by Niels Johcheere (RC29)
* Tim Schattkowsky (2:2/29), nominated Feb-5 by Fabio Bizzi (RC33)
* Jason Bock (1:267/310), nominated Feb-8 by Andrew Leary (RC16)
Candidates MUST accept by posting a message in FTSC_PUBLIC in
order to qualify, with the exception of self nominees. The
message must originate from a node number that has the candidate
listed as SysOp in NODELIST.040 as issued by the candidate's ZC.
His message of acceptance originates from 2:310/31.6 and therefore
does not comply with the above rule that has been in effect since
2019.
Nick Boel wrote to Michiel van der Vlist <=-
His message of acceptance originates from 2:310/31.6 and therefore
does not comply with the above rule that has been in effect since
2019.
Held on to that one since the day he accepted his nomination, didn't
you?
Just chomping at the bit the entire nomination period, waiting for it
to end, for your prized "gotchya" moment. When you could have politely pointed out the mistake (even via netmail) and had it corrected before
the period was over.
But no, you'd much rather shove a knife into ones back.
Who's surprised?
His message of acceptance originates from 2:310/31.6 and therefore
does not comply with the above rule that has been in effect since
2019.
Held on to that one since the day he accepted his nomination, didn't
you?
But no, you'd much rather shove a knife into ones back.
Tim Schattkowsky does not qualify as a candidate. His message of acceptance did not originate from a node number that lists him as a fidonet sysop.
Maurice Kinal wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Who's surprised?
I am shocked and dismayed. Does that count?
Voting for FTSC standing members is open now, from
Saturday, 15 Feb 2025, 20:00 UTC through Saturday, 08 Mar 2025, 20:00
UTC.
Rob,
Voting for FTSC standing members is open now, from
Saturday, 15 Feb 2025, 20:00 UTC through Saturday, 08 Mar 2025, 20:00 UTC.
Have you reached-out to the RCs so they know they can vote?
Have you reached-out to the RCs so they know they can vote?
No, not yet. Any help you can offer there (e.g. name and address list) would be appreciated.
No, not yet. Any help you can offer there (e.g. name and address list) would be appreciated.
Hmmmm ... surely ... one of the best developers in Fidonet knows how to reach RCs ... ?
Hi Rob,
On 2025-02-19 15:14:59, you wrote to Ward Dossche:
Have you reached-out to the RCs so they know they can vote?
No, not yet. Any help you can offer there (e.g. name and address list) would
be appreciated.
Have you heard about something called the nodelist? ;-)
# grep 'Region,' NODELIST.045
And use the output of that...
To me, the real issue here is: Why would RCs need to be reminded that they can vote on this? Shouldn't every single RC already know that? If they actually don't know that, should they even be an RC?
Rob,Ward,
Have you reached-out to the RCs so they know they can vote?
No, not yet. Any help you can offer there (e.g. name and address list) would be appreciated.
Hmmmm ... surely ... one of the best developers in Fidonet knows how to reach RCs ... ?
\%/@rd
--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)
To me, the real issue here is: Why would RCs need to be reminded that
they can vote on this? Shouldn't every single RC already know that?
If they actually don't know that, should they even be an RC?
2) I'm sure most of the RCs know they can vote on this, but the real question is.. Do they want or care to vote on this? Either way, I'd
say about 2/3-3/4 showed up last election and voted. Give it some
time.
Is it worth it?
Terry Roati wrote to Dan Clough <=-
On Feb 20, 2025 07:35am, Dan Clough wrote to Ward Dossche:
To me, the real issue here is: Why would RCs need to be reminded that they can vote on this? Shouldn't every single RC already know that? If they actually don't know that, should they even be an RC?
Very true but look at when the election is finished how many of the
RC's actually voted.
Nick Boel wrote to Dan Clough <=-
To me, the real issue here is: Why would RCs need to be reminded that
they can vote on this? Shouldn't every single RC already know that?
If they actually don't know that, should they even be an RC?
1) There's 3 weeks to vote on this. There has been no discussions with
any of the candidates, whatsoever. Michiel pointing out everyone else's flaws/mistakes comes with the territory, but doesn't count for
anything. He's probably still mad he got voted out of the chair, after having sat on that hat for a very long time, while doing much of
nothing.
2) I'm sure most of the RCs know they can vote on this, but the real question is.. Do they want or care to vote on this? Either way, I'd say about 2/3-3/4 showed up last election and voted. Give it some time.
The FTSC hasn't done fuck-all in years, not a single proposal raised to
a standard (even though some have been in regular use for 20+ years),
and the previous few times that proposals have been created and brought
to people's attention, there's a small amount that beat on their chests and do everything they possibly can to shut it down.
Is it worth it?
Rob Swindell wrote to Wilfred van Velzen <=-
# grep 'Region,' NODELIST.045
And use the output of that...
That produces 31 lines without complete addresses, e.g. Region,92,Panama,Pedasi_Panama,John_Dovey,-Unpublished-,300,CM,IBN:gatof uego.synchronetbbs.org,PING
Not directly useful to me, but then I haven't found the nodelist to be useful to me in many years.
Are there actually 31 RCs?
Is each supposedly reachable via netmail at <zone>:<region>/1?
1) There's 3 weeks to vote on this. There has been no discussions with
any of the candidates, whatsoever. Michiel pointing out everyone
else's flaws/mistakes comes with the territory, but doesn't count for anything. He's probably still mad he got voted out of the chair, after having sat on that hat for a very long time, while doing much of
nothing.
Have you heard about something called the nodelist? ;-)
Yeah, of course, though I haven't used one in over 20 years.
# grep 'Region,' NODELIST.045
And use the output of that...
That produces 31 lines without complete addresses, e.g.
Region,92,Panama,Pedasi_Panama,John_Dovey,-Unpublished-,300,CM,IBN:gatofuego.s
y nchronetbbs.org,PING
Not directly useful to me, but then I haven't found the nodelist to be useful to me in many years.
Are there actually 31 RCs?
Is each supposedly reachable via netmail at <zone>:<region>/1?
To me, the real issue here is: Why would RCs need to be reminded that
they can vote on this? Shouldn't every single RC already know that?
If they actually don't know that, should they even be an RC?
1) There's 3 weeks to vote on this. There has been no discussions with any of
the candidates, whatsoever.
Michiel pointing out everyone else's flaws/mistakes comes with the territory, but doesn't count for anything. He's probably still mad he
got voted out of the chair, after having sat on that hat for a very
long time, while doing much of nothing.
Yes, very disappointing level of discussion, for sure.
Are there actually 31 RCs?
Yes, there are.
The Euro-boys love having entire Regions with grand totals of 1-2
nodes in that region. There are 8 RCs in North America.
On the other hand, if the FTSC is so far gone that it's actually dead,
then why bother continuing the charade?
Maybe that's what you were asking about "worth" there, and in that
case I'd answer "probably not". Maybe it should just be disbanded and
let anarchy take over.
But I would hope that doesn't happen because it would likely hasten
the end of FidoNet.
Wilfred van Velzen wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Yes, very disappointing level of discussion, for sure.
And how much did you contribute to that?
So here's a question - does every little postage-stamp sized country
need to be it's own region? In the USA we call those size plots
"states", and there are multiple states in a Region.
And it isn't like in Z1 where sometimes half to three quarters
of the nodes in a region are ghost nodes that are not
connectable.
This is unfortunately true, and I'm no happier about that than you
are.
Yes, very disappointing level of discussion, for sure.
And how much did you contribute to that?
Well, nothing. My excuse is that I'm neither a Nominee nor an RC.
Perhaps it's time that NCs were allowed to contribute/vote?
Oh..... wait. That might eliminate the majority/control that Zone 2
has over the process, with the plethora of RCs located there, so we wouldn't want that, right?
So here's a question - does every little postage-stamp sized country
need to be it's own region?
In the USA we call those size plots "states", and there are multiple states in a Region.
Is it worth it?
On the other hand, if the FTSC is so far gone that it's actually
dead, then why bother continuing the charade? Maybe that's what you
were asking about "worth" there, and in that case I'd answer
"probably not". Maybe it should just be disbanded and let anarchy
take over. But I would hope that doesn't happen because it would
likely hasten the end of FidoNet.
Are there actually 31 RCs?
Yes, there are.
No there are 30.
Hello Michiel van der Vlist!
Which one is that?
Outch.
I don't see any updates in either fts above.
No there are 30.
I guess it's to difficult to just check the weekly report in our weekly newspaper.
including 4 zones
30 regions
157 hosts
59 hubs
admin overhead 250 ( 30.60 %)
It sure seems like a lot of admin overhead for 817 nodes. Maybe we
need some Elon Musk and his DOGE here in Fidonet as well?
I guess it's to difficult to just check the weekly report in our
weekly newspaper.
including 4 zones
30 regions
157 hosts
59 hubs
admin overhead 250 ( 30.60 %)
It sure seems like a lot of admin overhead for 817 nodes. Maybe we
need some Elon Musk and his DOGE here in Fidonet as well?
To me, the real issue here is: Why would RCs need to be reminded that
they can vote on this? Shouldn't every single RC already know that? If they actually don't know that, should they even be an RC?
ouch, lol. That was a poke and a touch of kindness. lol
1) There's 3 weeks to vote on this. There has been no discussions with
any of the candidates, whatsoever. Michiel pointing out everyone else's flaws/mistakes comes with the territory, but doesn't count for anything. He's probably still mad he got voted out of the chair, after having sat
on that hat for a very long time, while doing much of nothing.
Jason,
ouch, lol. That was a poke and a touch of kindness. lol
There was no harm intended. As Rob said, he hasn't looked at a nodelist for ages. I appreciate his presence and involvement.
A netmail to ...
1:10/0
1:11/0
1:12/0
1:13/0
1:16/0
1:17/0
1:18/0
1:19/0
3:54/0
3:57/0
4:80/0
4:88/0
4:90/0
4:93/0
... will do the trick... ('wink' to Rob)
\%/@rd
--- DB4 - 20230201
* Origin: Many Glacier - Preserve / Protect / Conserve (2:292/854)
I can understand you not being one of my fans but if you engage in back stabbing please get your facts straight.
As for me doing much of nothing, I invite everyone to check the author's name on the documents published during my watch. There are a substantial number with either my full name or "FTSC administrator" on it.
I shall not deny that some of the bumps and bruises I got during that
period are still aching at times but me being mad about being voted out
of the chair is fake news. I was not voted out of the chair, I resigned
of my own initiative.
As for my issue with Tim, it certainly does count. Him posting from a
point number is just the tip of the elephant's trunk. Yes, thee is an elephant in the room and so far no one will mention it or even see it.
I haven't seen you ask any questions to them...
And he is one of few members who actually wrote any
documents/proposals at all in the last few decades!
And he is one of few members who actually wrote any
documents/proposals at all in the last few decades!
You mean the only one that was able to push them through. He was also one of
the few who stopped documents/proposals from getting through, too..
Oh..... wait. That might eliminate the majority/control that Zone 2 has over the process, with the plethora of RCs located there, so we wouldn't want that, right?
There are no consequences for pig headed programmers and *Cs to
deviate from FTSC standards. And now that these pig headed programmers
have even invaded the FTSC (Rob Swindell, FTS-0009 and Tim Schattkowsky, FTS-5003) we may as abandon all hope.
Bj”rn Felten wrote to Wilfred van Velzen <=-
Are there actually 31 RCs?
Yes, there are.
No there are 30.
I guess it's to difficult to just check the weekly report in our
weekly newspaper.
including 4 zones
30 regions
157 hosts
59 hubs
admin overhead 250 ( 30.60 %)
Michiel van der Vlist wrote to BjArn Felten <=-
If you go through your Fidonews archives you will find two aticles of mine. Each proposing to drop one level of hierarchie. One to drop the Region level and another to drop the zone level.
I would not mind if you published them again.
There are no consequences for pig headed programmers and *Cs to
deviate from FTSC standards. And now that these pig headed
programmers have even invaded the FTSC (Rob Swindell, FTS-0009 and
Tim Schattkowsky, FTS-5003) we may as abandon all hope.
I have always found Rob to be very accomodating when I asked/suggested
him something ... pig headed?
Friendly adking helps...
Sometimes it does and sometimes it doesn't. I have done my share of trying keep the frogs in the wheel barrow. Now that I no longer have any function Fidonet I can drop the "diplomatics" and just say what is on my mind.
Kurt Weiske wrote to Wilfred van Velzen <=-
There isn't a position in Fidonet that can enforce big changes. And if someone tried that probably just speed up the decline of Fidonet...
One thing I've been concerned about is if you make a sweeping change
that requires a change from the downlinks, how many BBSes are running
on autopilot, and how many sysops would choose to pull the plug instead
of spending time on something they're effectively done with?
I took over R10 in 2012, and even back then with more participation saw roughly 10% of the network that either dropped out or was already gone when we made the switch.
Nowadays?
Might not be a bad thing, since any board that's on auto-pilot probably isn't contributing to anything except the nodelist.
Hi Rob,
On 2025-02-20 16:15:00, you wrote to me:
Have you heard about something called the nodelist? ;-)
Yeah, of course, though I haven't used one in over 20 years.
At all?
Isn't synchronet/binkit able to use a nodelist?
# grep 'Region,' NODELIST.045
And use the output of that...
That produces 31 lines without complete addresses, e.g.
It's all you need to know.
Region,92,Panama,Pedasi_Panama,John_Dovey,-Unpublished-,300,CM,IBN:gato fue go.s
y nchronetbbs.org,PING
You are using an old nodelist! Region,92 was removed from the nodelist on: 27 Nov 2024
Actually there are 30.
Is each supposedly reachable via netmail at <zone>:<region>/1?
No, it is: <zone>:<region>/0
That should work unless their system is misconfigured. In which case it's questionable if they should be a RC. ;-)
As for me doing much of nothing, I invite everyone to check the
author's name on the documents published during my watch. There are
a substantial number with either my full name or "FTSC
administrator" on it.
You were once very active. Then things got pretty stale for many
years. When I got to be a part of as well as witness documents and proposals brought to the table and some trying to be raised to
standards (which is the actual job of the FTSC)
get completely shot down by you and others, that was the nail in the coffin right there.
I shall not deny that some of the bumps and bruises I got during
that period are still aching at times but me being mad about being
voted out of the chair is fake news. I was not voted out of the
chair, I resigned of my own initiative.
Ah, my bad. Must not have been important enough for me to remember.
Was that about the time you held an election for yourself and got a
bunch of flak for it?
As for my issue with Tim, it certainly does count. Him posting from
a point number is just the tip of the elephant's trunk. Yes, thee
is an elephant in the room and so far no one will mention it or
even see it.
Tim is a current author of software being used in Fidonet, and quite a
few people already know that.
I'm guessing since most people in this echo either know Tim, or know
of his software, that where he posted from either went unnoticed or
nobody cared (because they knew he has a valid Fidonet node).
You had other motives, though.
Tim Schattkowsky does not qualify as a candidate. His message of
acceptance did not originate from a node number that lists him as a
fidonet sysop.
Hey Tim, you want to resend your acceptance message so that you can
prove to everyone that you are who you say you are and that you're capable of using FTN software. :-)
If you go through your Fidonews archives you will find two
aticles of mine. Each proposing to drop one level of hierarchie.
One to drop the Region level and another to drop the zone level.
I would not mind if you published them again.
I've posted the same thing - I thought you could get rid of the zone politics by making everything one zone, but then people complained
about whether it'd be called Zone 1 or Zone 2. :)
We're starting to see regional attrition, Z1C has consolidated zones recently when a RC retired. That might help with some of the
complication.
Separate IP-only legacy networks are the biggest complication, I'd
think - why have a region with a handful of legacy nets with 1-2 nodes
and no NC?
That low-level consolidation cleared up a lot of the complication. If everyone did that, from the bottom-up, I think we'd get rid of a lot
of that overhead.
You were once very active. Then things got pretty stale for many
years. When I got to be a part of as well as witness documents and
proposals brought to the table and some trying to be raised to
standards (which is the actual job of the FTSC)
No, that is NOT the job of the FTSC.
The job of the FTSC is not to automatically raise every submitted
proposal to a standard.
The job of the FTSC is to document current practise.
If you think different you have not understood what the job of the
FTSC is.
Have you stopped beating your wife?
I know that too. I had a point who uses WinPoint. I followed the
Winpoint area. That is how I discovered Tim's software is in violation
of FTS-5003. I discussed it with him. He refused to make his software FTS-5003 complient. His argument? "My way is better". Hence my "pig
headed".
Being the author of software however is not qualification for FTSC membership all by itself. There is the requirement of "node of good standing".
You had other motives, though.
So you say. You saying so does not make it so.
Exactly what I was referring to in my comment above, but thank you for
the long winded explanation of what I already know.
What if his way _is_ better?
Is this not how proposals and improvements are made as more options
and technology becomes available?
Being the author of software however is not qualification for FTSC
membership all by itself. There is the requirement of "node of good
standing".
And you know he has one,
were this kind of person, but this one can definitely go down in the record books as one of your finer moments.
You had other motives, though.
So you say. You saying so does not make it so.
Enough people were here to see it for themselves.
FTSC standards. And now that these pig headed programmers have even invaded the FTSC (Rob Swindell, FTS-0009 and Tim Schattkowsky, FTS-5003) we may as abandon all hope.
The messages of Rob Swindell violate FTS-0009.
There was no harm intended. As Rob said, he hasn't looked at a nodelist for ages. I appreciate his presence and involvement.
A netmail to ...
1:10/0
1:11/0
1:12/0
1:13/0
1:16/0
1:17/0
1:18/0
1:19/0
3:54/0
3:57/0
4:80/0
4:88/0
4:90/0
4:93/0
Re: 2025 FTSC election
By: Michiel van der Vlist to Dan Clough on Fri Feb 21 2025 12:41 pm
FTSC standards. And now that these pig headed programmers have eveninvaded
the FTSC (Rob Swindell, FTS-0009 and Tim Schattkowsky, FTS-5003) wemay as
abandon all hope.
Invaded? I was *asked* to join this committee. And it's not like there's anything of value here to be had by "invading" it.
The fact that we're all here using and toying with this arcane technology/network still today, decades after any relevancy, means that we're *all* stubborn (pig headed) to a degree, you included. If you meant that as an insult, you failed. This stuff is a hobby, a toy; and I can stubbornly play with my toy as long as I like and won't bullied away by the likes of you. So kindly, and I mean this with the most utmost due respect, go find another sandbox to piss in.
-Rob
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Vertrauen - [vert/cvs/bbs].synchro.net (1:103/705)
There was no harm intended. As Rob said, he hasn't looked at a
nodelist for ages. I appreciate his presence and involvement.
A netmail to ...
1:10/0
1:11/0
1:12/0
1:13/0
1:16/0
1:17/0
1:18/0
1:19/0
3:54/0
3:57/0
4:80/0
4:88/0
4:90/0
4:93/0
Thanks, I sent netmail reminders to those zone 1 node addresses
yesterday and now the zone 3 and 4 address today. Thank you,
I received your netmail here, addressed to "nc"
As for my issue with Tim, it certainly does count. Him posting from
a point number is just the tip of the elephant's trunk. Yes, thee
is an elephant in the room and so far no one will mention it or
even see it.
I really do not use IPV6 personally, except maybe a couple machines in
my lab. I have a couple clients that use it internally, usually in
some manufacturing environments.
I thought it would take off much more than it has in the US.
It would be good for me to start utilizing it more as it is something
that I may be forced to use at some point in my profession.
Do you use IPV6 regularly?
The messages of Rob Swindell violate FTS-0009.
Yeah, that's been debunked:
https://wiki.synchro.net/faq:misc#ftn_msgid
Dan Clough wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
I think the term "IP-only" is a legacy thing, actually. Nearly the
entire FidoNet is IP only now, and there's no reason to have some kind
of special network for them, or for the few remaining POTS systems.
That's what nodelist flags and fields are for.
Yeah, that's been debunked:
https://wiki.synchro.net/faq:misc#ftn_msgid
You have published your arguments of why you believe your mnethod to be "better". You have not disproven my assesment that your method is in violation of FTS-0009.
Actually, I did. Maybe read it?
Kurt Weiske wrote to Dan Clough <=-
I think the term "IP-only" is a legacy thing, actually. Nearly the
entire FidoNet is IP only now, and there's no reason to have some kind
of special network for them, or for the few remaining POTS systems.
That's what nodelist flags and fields are for.
I agree. Given the size of Fidonet, minus the administrative overhead,
minus the zombie echoes with no posts kept alive by moderators, and
minus the autopilot nodes, Fidonet would be a different place.
In the US, you could theoretically remove nets altogether and still
have a managaeable regional structure. There may be country-specific
complications in Z2 I'm not aware of.
Keeping busy. Thank you to BBSing (since 5th grade) and Fidonet, I
became passionate and knew I would love to work with computers. I had
my first computer at 3 or 4 (1979/1980). I started with a Texas
Instruments TI-99/4 then moved to a TI-994A with an expansion unit. I
hada blast!
I should look into doing more with IPv6 as it has been in the back of
my mind for a while.
Hey Rob!
Actually, I did. Maybe read it?
I've read it twice and still don't see where your document complies with;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
^AMSGID: origaddr serialno
The originating address should be specified in a form that
constitutes a valid return address for the originating network. --------------------------------------------------------------------
^AMSGID: 32799.ftsc_pub@1:103/705 2c227caf
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above is not a valid return address that I've ever seen.
Hello Jason!
24 Feb 25 18:00, you wrote to Michiel van der Vlist:
Keeping busy. Thank you to BBSing (since 5th grade) and Fidonet, I became passionate and knew I would love to work with computers. I had my first computer at 3 or 4 (1979/1980). I started with a Texas Instruments TI-99/4 then moved to a TI-994A with an expansion unit. I hada blast!
I should look into doing more with IPv6 as it has been in the back of
my mind for a while.
My experience is a little earlier as my first computer was a IBM 1401 and a
7094 around 1963 as an operator for both. Moved to programming around the same
time programming in machine code -> Autocode -> Cobol before also playing with
ICL 1501, 1900's and new range 29/39's and lots of others including Burroughs,
Honeywell, Univac, Cray, DEC (8/11) Elliot 803 and the very first programmable
computer available commercially the EE Leo 3 although technically the Leo 2
was
one as well but was not made available to purchase.
There is a wee stack of systems I have missed here.
My children played with computers in the early 80's with the oldest doing so
around 1983/4 on two US imported very large kits, and built by me in the mid
70's before I let them loose on Cromemco Z3 constellations running Cromix (*nix).
Vincent
--- Mageia Linux v9 X64/Mbse v1.1.0/GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240309
* Origin: Air Applewood, The Linux Gateway to the UK & Eire (2:250/1)
Rob Swindell wrote to Maurice Kinal <=-
Re: 2025 FTSC election
By: Maurice Kinal to Rob Swindell on Mon Feb 24 2025 07:32 pm
Actually, I did. Maybe read it?
I've read it twice and still don't see where your document complies with;
--------------------------------------------------------------------
^AMSGID: origaddr serialno
The originating address should be specified in a form that
constitutes a valid return address for the originating network. --------------------------------------------------------------------
^AMSGID: 32799.ftsc_pub@1:103/705 2c227caf
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
The above is not a valid return address that I've ever seen.
1. That clause you quoted is not a requirement.
2. That *is* a valid return addresss - send a netmail message to that address and I'll get it.
Yeah, that's been debunked:
https://wiki.synchro.net/faq:misc#ftn_msgid
You have published your arguments of why you believe your mnethod
to be "better". You have not disproven my assesment that your
method is in violation of FTS-0009.
Actually, I did.
Maybe read it?
Why is an operational node even required?
Dan Clough wrote to Kurt Weiske <=-
Probably true, as long as the RCs were competent and kept on top of things.
Kurt Weiske wrote to Dan Clough <=-
Probably true, as long as the RCs were competent and kept on top of things.
That's one thing I wish we had - more consistency at the RC level. It's
a volunteer position, and response times and responses vary. I've
helped a couple of people when their RC didn't respond to requests, and
I know Z1C actively assists new and prospective sysops.
One area of Fidonet structure that's archaic are separate echomail coordinators, it seems like that's a hat most RCs wear now.
MvdV> Have you stopped beating your wife?Was that about the time you held an election for yourself and got a
bunch of flak for it?
| Sysop: | Coz |
|---|---|
| Location: | Anoka, MN |
| Users: | 2 |
| Nodes: | 4 (0 / 4) |
| Uptime: | 25:38:27 |
| Calls: | 300 |
| Calls today: | 2 |
| Files: | 5,642 |
| Messages: | 226,668 |