Text 1693, 123 rader
Skriven 2008-03-27 13:30:25 av Michiel van der Vlist (2:280/5555)
   Kommentar till text 1662 av Carol Shenkenberger (602.ftsc_pub)
Ärende: MakeNl_Ng
=================
Hello Carol,

On Wednesday March 26 2008 22:05, you wrote to me:

 >>  CS> P4 allows for Zone policies.
 >>
 >> That is politics. Has nothing to do with technicakl standards.

 CS> It's part of P4.

And has nothing to do with FTSC standards.

 >>  CS> Did you think no other zone also had such?

 >> The only official IC approved regional policy I know of the R24REGPOL
 >> http://www.vlist.eu/downloads/policys/regp100.024

 CS> We arent talking regional bit zonal.

It is the only example of an officially approved local policy that I know of.
There may be or have been other local policies on some level, but I am not
aware of any officially approved ones.

 CS>   Errflags is a zonal one.

Errflags is a tool to help produce a clean and technically correct nodelist. It
is no more a (zonal) policy that MakeNl is. It is just a tool.

 >> There may have been more.

 >>  CS> I assure you they do.

Then provide me with an example of an officially approved zonal policy.

 >>  CS> The zones split in mamy ways over a decade of no active IC.

The presence of an IC has never made much difference as no single zone ever
really wanted to cooperate with any IC doing any real interzonal coordination.

 >> Pretending that doesnt exist is a non-starting point.

 >> That does not mean that I can not have a problem with zones going
 >> there own and arbitraily give their own meaning to documented
 >> standards.

 CS> Well, it happened starting around 1990.

Motorists have been running red lights for much longer. Should we therefore
declare it ok to run red lights?

 >> Why do you want to be a part of the FTSC team if you do not want to
 >> uphold its standards?

 >>  >> What I am trying to convey is that FTSC members should set a good
 >>  >> example in correctly living up to the documented FSTC standards.
 >>
 >>  CS> Your job is just to be spokesman for the group when we need one.
 >>  CS> You do not have to right to dictate to FTSC members that they
 >>  CS> should not (or can not, or are 'wrong') to follow any policy
 >>  CS> in effect in their  zone.

 >> I am not dictating anything. I am just pointing out that one can
 >> expect from loyal member of the team to set the good example and
 >> adhere to documeted standards.

 CS> Loyal members?  IE:  agree with you on all things?

No, you can disagree if you want or feel the need. But I think it is reasonable
to ask that FTSC members adhere to the documented and agreed upon standards.

 CS> This doesnt mean we are in agreement on all, nor should we be.  Your
 CS> recent stance since a non-vote on FTSC lead, is to take the position
 CS> to things it never was before and you are getting feedback that it
 CS> isnt all that well liked.

From non FTSC members....

It is not my job to please everyone. It is my job to see that the FTSC can do
its assigned task. If that means stepping on some toes, so be it. It is not
something I like, but unfortunately it can not always be avoided.

 CS> Granted Mark Lewis (lots of stress there stil I am sure) has been a
 CS> bit more 'rude' but you are being very pushy.

I am trying to point out that the FTSC is something more than a sandpit where a
bunchs of semi anarchist individuals each build there own castle. It is a team,
and I think it is only fair to make the candidates and the voters aware of
this. There is - in addition to other qualities - the aspect of "fitting in
with the team". Perhaps some people should take some time to consider this
angle...

[..]

 >> Then maybe you are caught in a situation where you try to serve two
 >> masters that want different things form you?

 CS> Classic sample of you just being wrong but not able to see it.

On the contrary, I think I hit the nail right on the head. I think it is you -
who from the position of having two hats on top of your head - are unable to
see there really are two hats of different colour. You seem to be unable to see
it, or unwilling to admit it. That too is classic you know...

 CS> I highly suspect you just want me to quit.  Your actions and words
 CS> definately lead there.  ON the other hand, I'm getting lots of
 CS> netmails from others asking me not to,

I am sure there is lots of netmail flying around these days. With all different
flavours. I got some too...

 CS> as they fear what would happen without a voice of sanity left on the
 CS> FTSC.  Think about it.  I'm not the one who caused the impression that
 CS> my leaving would leave the FTSC without a voice of sanity.

Some may have that impression. The fact that already some negative votes are
cast, illustrates that there are also some who feel the FTSC would function
better as a team if not every candidate were elected.


Cheers, Michiel

--- GoldED+/W32-MINGW 1.1.5-b20070503
 * Origin: http://www.vlist.org (2:280/5555)