Hello everybody!

For the nominees

My RC has asked feedback to get information about who we want to support as FTSC member.
(that is an option but is not really necessary according the rules, probably that is why some RC's already cast their votes)

As I am just a few months back into Fidonet after abandoning it at the end of 1999 ... I wonder

Can the nominees give me information about what they are going to do the next years with their FTSC seat?
Can existing FTSC members, who are again having a nomination give me information what they have done?

Based on feedback I probably can make a judgement about my (internal) vote which could result in a vote from the RC (and it may not).

Thank you in advance!

Dennis


... Stop clicking things you don't understand.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240309
* Origin: ---- BOFH: Problem solved, user deleted. (2:280/2060)

On <27 Feb, 09:33>, Dennis Slagers wrote to ALL :

Hello everybody!

For the nominees

My RC has asked feedback to get information about who we want to support as FTSC member.
(that is an option but is not really necessary according the rules, probably that is why some RC's already cast their votes)

As I am just a few months back into Fidonet after abandoning it at the
end of 1999 ... I wonder

Can the nominees give me information about what they are going to do the next years with their FTSC seat?
Can existing FTSC members, who are again having a nomination give me information what they have done?

Based on feedback I probably can make a judgement about my (internal)
vote which could result in a vote from the RC (and it may not).

Thank you in advance!

Dennis

... Stop clicking things you don't understand.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240309
* Origin: ---- BOFH: Problem solved, user deleted. (2:280/2060)

Dennis,

I would like to see a list of issues or ideas that current members have and we can discuss them.

I feel that because of these discussions that are going on, we should first review the rules regarding nominations and voting, then move on to other rules. This seems to be sloppy and is causing tension.

Then, move on to current document review, proposals, etc.

-Jason

--- ProBoard v2.32
* Origin: ProBoard WHQ - SiliconUnderground - siliconu.com (1:267/310)

Hello Jason!

27 Feb 25 06:05, you wrote to me:

Dennis,

I would like to see a list of issues or ideas that current members
have and we can discuss them.

Valid point, but up to know nothing is shared by the members.
So I have no clue what is being done.

I feel that because of these discussions that are going on, we should first review the rules regarding nominations and voting, then move on
to other rules. This seems to be sloppy and is causing tension.

ok

Then, move on to current document review, proposals, etc.

check!

-Jason

Gr.
Dennis


... Downtime builds character.
--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240309
* Origin: ---- BOFH: Problem solved, user deleted. (2:280/2060)

Hello Dennis!

27 Feb 25 09:33, you wrote to all:

For the nominees

My RC has asked feedback to get information about who we want to
support as FTSC member. (that is an option but is not really necessary according the rules, probably that is why some RC's already cast their votes)

As I am just a few months back into Fidonet after abandoning it at the
end of 1999 ... I wonder

Can the nominees give me information about what they are going to do
the next years with their FTSC seat? Can existing FTSC members, who
are again having a nomination give me information what they have done?

I have been a member of the FTSC for just over 14 years now. In that time, I have participated in the review and editing of each document that came up for discussion. In October 2018, Michiel van der Vlist, the previous FTSC Administrator, resigned his position and after an election I was chosen to succeed him. Since then, I have acted as both an FTSC Standing Member and the FTSC Administrator.

My goals for the next year are:

1. Complete the review of the current backlog of FidoNet Standards Proposals. There are a couple which are nearly complete, a few that are incomplete, and 2 which are simply placeholders with no meaningful content as of yet.

2. Update the FTSC file listings.

3. Work with the webmaster of the ftsc.org website to enable secure https:// access.

Hope this helps,

Andrew

--- GoldED+/LNX 1.1.5-b20240209
* Origin: From the Desk of the FTSC Administrator (1:320/219)

Hi Jason,

On 2025-02-27 06:05:00, you wrote to Dennis Slagers:

I would like to see a list of issues or ideas that current members
have and we can discuss them.

I feel that because of these discussions that are going on, we should first
review the rules regarding nominations and voting, then move on to other rules. This seems to be sloppy and is causing tension.

Good idea! But if after the election other members remain silent, are you going to take the initiative?

Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.4-B20240523
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

Hi Jason,

On 2025-02-27 07:46:14, you wrote to me:

Good idea! But if after the election other members remain silent,
are you going to take the initiative?

I will attempt to do so. I will need to look at all of the
documentation to see my path. This will be an interesting adventure.
lol

In all reality, I can try to be the push to help facilitate communication.

That's what the FTSC needs: Someone that pushes things along! ;-)


Bye, Wilfred.

--- FMail-lnx64 2.3.2.4-B20240523
* Origin: FMail development HQ (2:280/464)

//Hello Dennis,//

on *27.02.2025* at *8:33:38* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *ALL* about *"Question for the nominees"*.

Can the nominees give me information about what they are going to do the next years with their FTSC seat?

Beyond the need to review/renew existing proposals, I see two major topics
- improving security and privacy in fidonet, making it a viable alternative for safe communication. Existing approaches are dated and incomplete.
- often writing a fido messages feels crippled compared to an email, mostly because of the lack of support for embedded images and attachments, but also because text formatting becomes an issue. This, providing compatible mechanics for transporting larger messages with richer content is a major area for advancement. This means option more reliable text formatting and the inclusion of Images. Something that is simple to implement based on existing internet- and FTSC standards.

Regards,
Tim
--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)

Tim Schattkowsky wrote to Dennis Slagers <=-

Can the nominees give me information about what they are going to do the next years with their FTSC seat?

Beyond the need to review/renew existing proposals,

This should be the major focus of the FTSC. Fix the backlog.

I see two major topics

- improving security and privacy in fidonet, making it a viable alternative for safe communication. Existing approaches are dated and incomplete.

Doesn't seem like a big concern to me. I don't expect communications to
be secure in Fidonet.

- often writing a fido messages feels crippled compared to
an email, mostly because of the lack of support for embedded images and attachments, but also because text formatting becomes an issue. This, providing compatible mechanics for transporting larger messages with richer content is a major area for advancement. This means option more reliable text formatting and the inclusion of Images. Something that is simple to implement based on existing internet- and FTSC standards.

I don't mind going on record here to say that I'd be opposed to this. I
don't *want* "richer content" in Fidonet messages. I want them to
remain as plain text. If I want fancy formatting and images, I'll use
some other platform for that. I *like* that Fidonet is plain and
simple.



... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

//Hello Dan,//

on *27.02.2025* at *16:52:05* You wrote in Area *FTSC_PUBLIC*
to *Tim Schattkowsky* about *"Re: Question for the nominees"*.

- improving security and privacy in fidonet, making it a viable
alternative for safe communication. Existing approaches are dated and
incomplete.

Doesn't seem like a big concern to me. I don't expect communications to be secure in Fidonet.

I know that WinPoint is used for example in Ukraine and other regions because it provides a level of security through obscurity. Still, neither the transmissions nor the payload are properly protected. Available mechanics from MD5 BinkP to PGP-encrypted netmails have tool support issues are are just not safe by todays standards.

- often writing a fido messages feels crippled compared to
an email, mostly because of the lack of support for embedded images and
attachments, but also because text formatting becomes an issue. This,
providing compatible mechanics for transporting larger messages with
richer content is a major area for advancement. This means option more
reliable text formatting and the inclusion of Images. Something that is
simple to implement based on existing internet- and FTSC standards.

I don't mind going on record here to say that I'd be opposed to this. I don't want "richer content" in Fidonet messages. I want them to remain
as plain text. If I want fancy formatting and images, I'll use some
other platform for that. I like that Fidonet is plain and simple.

And other people sometimes like to send a screenshot to explain their problem. The ability to get a picture through if needed is commonplace everywhere else. While the straightforward solution would be MIME and co, I actually also would like something simpler that just gets pictures into the classic text messages.

But the interesting part of your response is: Like many others, you seem rather uninterested in true advancement. Instead, people calling themselves the whatever police want to be important in advising others about character encoding. Maybe it helps their ego. It certainly doesnt help Fidonet to get better.

Regards,
Tim

--- WinPoint 415.0
* Origin: Original WinPoint Origin! (2:2/29)

Re: Question for the nominees
By: Dennis Slagers to ALL on Thu Feb 27 2025 09:33 am

Hey Dennis

The responsibility of the FTSC, which has also been shared here, is to "who document technical practice in FidoNet" (as per the ftsc.org website).

Further according to FTA-1000:

1. Documenting current practice in technical standards.
2. Encouraging new technologies in Fidonet software development.
3. Reassessing and revising FTS documents regularly.
4. Being publicly accessible to Fidonet sysops.
5. Distributing Technical Standards and Proposals.
6. Providing FTS document interpretations on software compatibility.

Can the nominees give me information about what they are going to do the next

years with their FTSC seat?

So we can look at these in summary below:
* There is little, to no, new public technical approaches to the FTN. Documentation already exists for existing practices. (1)
* In my time as a modern (post 2015 ish) fidonet sysop, I've seen many folks come forward with ideas around new capabilities (which may related to new technologies), only to be disheartened by the naysayers. This has resulted in those people to find enjoyment elsewhere, or implement their own approaches anyway without the desire to document it for others. (2)
* Agreement is difficult to reach on what the "true intent" of some of the existing documentation - look at the discussion in this echo over the years, so little to no new submissions for review have been received (to my knowledge anyway). (3) (6)
* ftsc.org covers (4) (5)

Like Rob said earlier, this is a hobby, and for me I accepted my enrolment all those years ago motivated by point (2). While discussion on documenting new technologies has not made it to the FTSC for review, those who have approach me - I've worked with those individuals to evaluate, test and prove those ideas in the spirit of this hobby.

The fruits of that effort, have resulted in my own mailer/tosser being created and used as a hub, node, nc, rc, zc for a many FTN nets. I have evaluated different packet structures and transfer methods, but given the lack of other new innovation, exacerbated by the lack of developers it's unlikely those ideas will become general use.

(To my knowledge, nobody has incurred any long term loss using or interacting with my mailer, implemented by my interpretation of the intent of some of the existing standards - and that's good enough for me. If I have broken something, I'm always keen to fix it, to keep those systems online.)

Sorry, I digressed, "what am I going to do?", continue to encourage new technologies.

Can existing FTSC members, who are again having a nomination give me information what they have done?

Not much - I think I've covered that above.


...ëîåï
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: I'm playing with ANSI+videotex - wanna play too? (3:633/509)

Tim Schattkowsky wrote to Dan Clough <=-

- often writing a fido messages feels crippled compared to
an email, mostly because of the lack of support for embedded images and
attachments, but also because text formatting becomes an issue. This,
providing compatible mechanics for transporting larger messages with
richer content is a major area for advancement. This means option more
reliable text formatting and the inclusion of Images. Something that is
simple to implement based on existing internet- and FTSC standards.

I don't mind going on record here to say that I'd be opposed to this. I don't want "richer content" in Fidonet messages. I want them to remain
as plain text. If I want fancy formatting and images, I'll use some
other platform for that. I like that Fidonet is plain and simple.

And other people sometimes like to send a screenshot to explain their problem. The ability to get a picture through if needed is commonplace everywhere else. While the straightforward solution would be MIME and
co, I actually also would like something simpler that just gets
pictures into the classic text messages.

Well, that may be your preference, and that's fine. I suspect the
majority of Fidonet users would disagree with that. One solution, that
I see frequently, is to put a link to a webpage with a screen capture or whatever image into the message. Works fine.

But the interesting part of your response is: Like many others, you
seem rather uninterested in true advancement. Instead, people calling themselves the whatever police want to be important in advising others about character encoding. Maybe it helps their ego. It certainly doesnt help Fidonet to get better.

I don't really care about any of that character encoding stuff, myself.
I do think that you seem to equate "better" with "advancement". That
isn't always true, especially when "better" is usually a subjective
thing interpreted differently by different people. Sometimes, *simple*
or *how-it-is-now* is better.

I'd also like to remind you that it is *NOT* the charter of the FTSC to advance or improve anything. It's to document and standardize the
current methods/practices of Fidonet. You'll do well to remember that,
rather than pushing a personal agenda.



... He does the work of 3 Men...Moe, Larry & Curly
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.23-Linux
* Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

Hello Dan,

On Thursday February 27 2025 10:52, you wrote to Tim Schattkowsky:

- often writing a fido messages feels crippled compared to
an email, mostly because of the lack of support for embedded
images and attachments, but also because text formatting becomes
an issue. This, providing compatible mechanics for transporting
larger messages with richer content is a major area for
advancement. This means option more reliable text formatting and
the inclusion of Images. Something that is simple to implement
based on existing internet- and FTSC standards.

I don't mind going on record here to say that I'd be opposed to this.
I don't *want* "richer content" in Fidonet messages. I want them to
remain as plain text. If I want fancy formatting and images, I'll
use some other platform for that. I *like* that Fidonet is plain and simple.

On this I agree with you. If I want more that just plain text i will use some other medium.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nieuw Schnøørd (2:280/5555)

Hello Tim,

On Thursday February 27 2025 18:12, you wrote to Dan Clough:

I know that WinPoint is used for example in Ukraine and other regions because it provides a level of security through obscurity. Still,
neither the transmissions nor the payload are properly protected. Available mechanics from MD5 BinkP to PGP-encrypted netmails have tool support issues are are just not safe by todays standards.

In the case of FDidonet security through onscurity seems to work. It seems to not yet have atracted the attention of governmemt security services. If we strart playing with high level security mechanisms it may have the acverse effect of attracting rheir attention.

And other people sometimes like to send a screenshot to explain their problem. The ability to get a picture through if needed is commonplace everywhere else.

And that is exactly where Fidonet is different from all the rest. If we start adding all that, it may hasting the end of Fidonet because it will becomes just one of the many.

Letting the bikers into the horse club to "save" it may just turn it into anoher bikers club instead of saving the horse club.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MSVC 1.1.5-b20170303
* Origin: Nieuw Schnøørd (2:280/5555)

Hello Michiel!

28 Feb 25 14:22, you wrote to Tim Schattkowsky:

Hello Tim,

On Thursday February 27 2025 18:12, you wrote to Dan Clough:

I know that WinPoint is used for example in Ukraine and other
regions because it provides a level of security through
obscurity. Still, neither the transmissions nor the payload are
properly protected. Available mechanics from MD5 BinkP to
PGP-encrypted netmails have tool support issues are are just not
safe by todays standards.

In the case of FDidonet security through onscurity seems to work. It
seems to not yet have atracted the attention of governmemt security services. If we strart playing with high level security mechanisms it
may have the acverse effect of attracting rheir attention.

And other people sometimes like to send a screenshot to explain
their problem. The ability to get a picture through if needed is
commonplace everywhere else.

And that is exactly where Fidonet is different from all the rest. If
we start adding all that, it may hasting the end of Fidonet because it
will becomes just one of the many.

Letting the bikers into the horse club to "save" it may just turn it
into anoher bikers club instead of saving the horse club.

I must remind all those persons that wish to update/upgrade the messaging system that most if not all of us use software that has VERY limited support from a programmer let alone the originator.

This means that most products on all platforms cannot be changed to support these new suggestions such as embedded images other than as file attachments.

It is bad enough with issues such as fonts and character formats etc.,
and trying to read echo's where poster has used an obscure page setting that just shows up as junk on both sides of words without making it worse.

Please lets keep clear of such changes as I for one, that if I need to use such
extras i.e., embedded images within a msg I will use a email.

I do agree that some of these existing documents need revising if only to remove sysops or others who are no longer with us other than as the author of such docs. Likewise revising out of date documents that time and space has shown that s/w has moved on from the date of original creation and again likewise processes and procedures that have changed over time for what ever reason.

It just needs one or two people to go through them and clean up out of date info but not reinventing the wheel that cannot be implemented because the existing software will not allow it.

I vote for any one who is interested in trying to maintain these some
called technical documents in their own time that have some understanding of the way systems and software works on all the differing platforms that are used
today including but not limited to Dos, Windows, OS/2, Linux and other *nix based platforms including IBM M/F using MVS, OS390 & Z/OS using *nix as well as
Linux etc and I am sure I have missed out some platforms in use around the bbs world.

Oh, yes I was a member of this group some years back but found that nothing was
being organised to deal with these type of problems (or any other for that matter) so on re-election did not stand again.
The bickering did not help from the outsiders who were not up to volunteering anyway (sounds like a politician).
(There must be a course they go on the first day of entering parliment to only speak total BS without saying any thing.

Vincent

Host region 25.


--- 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)