Subj : Re: FTA-1000 FTSC Charter Revisions
To   : Dan Clough
From : Carol Shenkenberger
Date : Sun Dec 11 2022 05:41 pm

  Re: Re: FTA-1000 FTSC Charter Revisions
  By: Dan Clough to Andrew Leary on Mon Nov 28 2022 07:37 am

 > -=> Andrew Leary wrote to All <=-
 > 
 >  AL> Hello everybody!
 > 
 >  AL> It has been suggested that a revision of the FTSC Charter is
 >  AL> needed, specifically that the minimum number of standing members
 >  AL> in 2.1.3 needs to be reduced.
 > 
 >  AL> I support revising this to a minimum of 5 vs. the current 7.
 > 
 >  AL> As revisions to the FTSC Charter require a broad public concensus
 >  AL> in FTSC_PUBLIC, I welcome any/all interested FidoNet SysOps to
 >  AL> provide their input on this proposal.
 > 
 > Who is suggesting that it be revised, and what reason is given as to why
 > that would be needed?
 > 
 > 
 > 
 > ... Gone crazy, be back later, please leave message.
 > === MultiMail/Linux v0.52

There are many who feel it's an adjunct of a bygone era of growth.  Me, I think
some members forgot they are there to foster growth and just want to cut down
ideas instead of letting the proposals in then let time test to see if they
grow to standards.

Becasuse of that view, many innovators do not want to play while some don't
want those waning to listen, to be there because they don't program major
projects.  That results in fewer candidates willing to *try* to make things
better, even if in small ways.

I would like to change that perception.  What we need, is people willing to
listen to new ideas and help them make a trial of them, with enough info that
another can jump along and try it too.

In the meantime, we face reality. The one 'group' that is by charter to foster
inovation, isn't going too well.

I want better for us all.

  xxcarol
--- SBBSecho 2.11-Win32
 * Origin: SHENK'S EXPRESS telnet://shenks.synchro.net (1:275/100)

.