Subj : Re: Nlcheck report
To   : Carlos Navarro
From : Dan Clough
Date : Sun Jan 04 2026 14:01:56

-=> Carlos Navarro wrote to Dan Clough <=-

 DC> This guy was allowed to have a non-valid entry in the nodelist so he
 DC> could be elected to the FTSC.  It's very obvious that that is not
 DC> allowed by P4 and that some "special arrangement" was made so he could
 DC>  be on the FTSC.

 DC> Why is a ZC allowed to do such things?  Why does/did Ward want this
 DC> guy on the FTSC so badly?

 DC> Why can't the potential candidate get an actual/valid (MO) node number
 DC>  like anyone else would be required to do?

 DC> Now that he *is* on the FTSC, what groundbreaking achievements has he
 DC> accomplished there, for the betterment of FidoNet?

 CN> If I'm not mistaken, Ward has encouraged that the FTSC consists of
 CN> people that have contributed to the advancement of Fidonet,
 CN> particularly FTN developers.

Sure, and I have no problem or disagreement with that.

 CN> No doubt, Tim is one of them. Winpoint is an excellent Fidonet program,
 CN> and he has been maintaining and improving it recently.

I don't use or know about Winpoint, but I recognize that as a true and 
valuable contribution.

 CN> I believe that he deserves a node number so that he can be a member of
 CN> the FTSC, or just because of his contribution to Fidonet. However, if
 CN> he cannot (or simply doesn't want to) maintain a connectable node,
 CN> there should be no problem if he is assigned a Pvt node (perhaps in a
 CN> net in R24 or any other one) instead of a RIN.

No doubt that he deserves a node number!  That isn't really my point.  
It doesn't have to be a PVT node number is what I'm saying.  Especially 
when that practice (PVT node) is *SPECIFICALLY* NOT ALLOWED as a 
Zone/Region Independent node.  See section 2.1.9 of Policy 4 on that.  
You mentioned that he is a RIN, but actually it's a ZIN.  Not allowed.

Either he should be a PVT node in a Network somewhere, or a ZIN with an 
actual node number (not PVT).  As for connectable, that's easy... It 
would be a "MO" node, with no "CM" flag.  Done.

So, hey Ward.  How about your input on this?  How do you justify this 
blatant disregard for P4, as the ZC/IC...?



.... Internal Error: The system has been taken over by sheep at line 19960
=== MultiMail/Linux v0.52
--- SBBSecho 3.34-Linux
 * Origin: Palantir * palantirbbs.ddns.net * Pensacola, FL * (1:135/115)

.