textfiles/bbs/FIDONET/JENNINGS/STANDARDS/ftsc.txt

Original Message Date: 07 Aug 92  18:18:46
From: Rick Moore on 1:115/333
To: Tom Jennings   on 1:125/111
Subj: FTS-0004 Revision
^AMSGID: 1:115/333@fidonet ee0f38e0
* Original to: John Souvestre at 1:396/1
      CC'd to: George Peace, Butch Walker, Tom Jennings  


In a msg on <07-Aug-92, 09:49>, John Souvestre of 1:396/1 writes:

 > I have no desire to debate with you either, Rick.  It's been well 
 > over a year that you promised "quick action" to the ZEC.  BOP was 
 > revised based on your promise.  It is in the process of being 
 > revised again, so I'm glad to know where you now stand.

At the time, I naively thought that your draft would receive no objection <20>
from FTSC members and would be adopted quickly.  This was not the case.
 
While I guess I could just have adopted your first draft via fiat, I have <20>
also promised the members of FTSC that it is they who will make such <20>
decisions.

Aside from you and George, not ONE single FTSC member has told me (in <20>
private, or in FTSC) they would support any of your or George's drafts as <20>
written.  That's the bottom line as I see it.   

 RM>> ... it was permissible for FTSC to release recommendations 
 RM>> that might require code changes in working programs.

 > "Might"?  It would break about 90% of the software currently in 
 > use on the Zone 1 Backbone.  That aside, let's get to the basic 
 > issue:  The FTSC's charter.

First, your 90% is pure conjecture.  I prefer not to make such sweeping <20>
statements without real evidence.

Second, just who do you think FTSC members are?  While I make no claim as <20>
to what percentage of echomail processor handler authors are part of FTSC, <20>
the authors of many of the most popular packages are members, and most <20>
participated in the discussions in FTSC.  It was because I perceived firm <20>
support from these authors to update their programs within the six month <20>
(or even a year, if members think the longer time is needed) that I <20>
changed my mind.

 > On Apr 16 1992 Rick Moore said:

RM>> FTSC is not here to lead software development, balance the 
RM>> federal RM> budget, or solve the problems in your love life 
RM>> for you.  We exist to RM> document widespread existing 
RM>> practice.

 > I won't even mention the lecture you gave me at FidoCon 91 when I 
 > suggested allowing for improvements to the Path Line.  But now, 
 > on Aug 02 1992, you are singing an entirely different song.

Sorry you thought it was a lecture.  I thought it was a two-way exchange <20>
of opinions.  Ironically, it was the talks I had with you and others that <20>
led me to change my mind.

 RM>> The specific point in question was the decision to require 
 RM>> that ALL echomail control lines be prefaced with ^A.  
 RM>> Making this one change would really tighten up the spec and 
 RM>> make it easier and faster to handle echomail messages.

 > You are worried about making seen-by lines faster to scan while 
 > the major authors (QM, Squish, TossScan) are working to get rid 
 > of them.  You are spending time on an improvement which will make 
 > little or no difference by the time it would be implemented.

I simply pointed out the fact that scanning would be easier as an example <20>
why we need to clean up the specs we do publish.  I agree that FTS-0004 is <20>
a bad spec - hell, it was never written as a spec.

I have not changed my basic philosophy at all.  Change for change's sake, <20>
with no concern for backwards compatibility, is still not justified or <20>
desirable.  But I don't think a blanket statement that we will never <20>
change anything regardless of need is realistic.  Please be clear on this <20>
- I HAVE CHANGED MY THINKING!  Got that?  No need to drag up any more old <20>
messages - I admit it publicly.

All proposed changes to FTSC documents will be weighed carefully for <20>
cost/benefit.  Only when a two-thirds majority of FTSC members agree that <20>
any change is worth the cost will that change be recommended.

 RM>> After thinking about it for a while, even TJ agreed that the 
 RM>> advantages outweighed the disadvantages.

 > Then your job as Chairman of the FTSC is secure.  On the other 
 > hand, it is possible that some other specification will be 
 > adopted by the Zone 1 Backbone.

That's a cheap, below-the-belt shot.

As for the thinly-veiled threats from you and other backbone members, you <20>
can take a flying fuck at a rolling donut for all I care.  If you think <20>
you can do a better job of getting the developer community in FidoNet to <20>
tow the line with the heavy-handed bullshit you people have been <20>
threatening for years, then by all means, go for it.

FTSC has never had, nor attempted to acquire, a monopoly on <20>
standards-writing in FidoNet.  We have no enforcement power whatever.  We <20>
make recommendations.  If a concensus of FTSC members decide on a given <20>
recommendation, we will make it.  To do any less would be shirking our <20>
responsibility. 

 RM>> ... a six month period from the date of promulgation would 
 RM>> be set for compliance.

 > That's certainly a generous time period, considering we are 
 > talking about software which is released about every two years, 
 > on average.

The length of the period has not been set - six months was just suggested <20>
by several members.  I have no problem with a year.  Two years is too <20>
long, but I will again defer to FTSC's membership.

 RM>> ... (dropping tear lines) that may well break some programs.

 > Tear lines are optional per the current specification.  Dropping 
 > them could not break any compliant program.

Ah, now after accusing me of ignoring the real world, you choose to live <20>
in an ideal world.  The fact is that many, if not most, echomail <20>
processors deviate from FTS-0004 in one or more ways, and the fact is, <20>
according to the authors of the some of these programs, that dropping tear <20>
lines will break some popular echomail processors.  You can't have it both <20>
ways - people whose favorite program just stopped handling their daily <20>
echomail fix don't give a damn if said program is compliant with some spec <20>
somewhere.

The fact is that changing a single word of any FTSC spec will probably <20>
break some piece of software somewhere.

 RM>> I intend to put the issue to a straw poll when my alternate 
 RM>> draft is done.  We will vote on the draft the members 
 RM>> prefer.

 > Let me see if I have this straight.  You've changed the rules and 
 > you are writing a draft which takes advantage of the changes but 
 > I'm not allowed to submit a draft taking advantage of the 
 > changes?  You are aware that there are certain changes which I 
 > would like to see made (ex: Path Line) yet did not since there 
 > were "against the rules" at the time.

I haven't changed the rules at all.  I've changed my personal opinion, and <20>
I'll do it again whenever I feel the need.  The rules in FTSC were changed <20>
about a six months ago, at the suggestion of several people whose opinions <20>
I respect, in two ways - all votes will now take place in the echo instead <20>
of secret ballots, and a two-thirds majority instead of a simple majority <20>
vote is required to adopt a recommendation.  Other than that, nothing <20>
whatever has changed in the way of rules.

As for what you put into your drafts (and I have assumed that George and <20>
you were in agreement as to what the drafts he submitted contained), by <20>
all means propose whatever you wish.  All I'm doing by submitting an <20>
alternate draft is giving FTSC members a chance to choose on an issue I <20>
consider important.  Would it be more proper for me to ignore the opinions <20>
of an important subset of both the developer community and the *C <20>
structure (remember, both the Z1C, the IC, a former Z3C (and tech VP of <20>
IFNA), and a number of RC's are among FTSC's members) and make a <20>
back-alley deal with you as to what the FTS-0004 update should contain?

 RM>> I'd rather see us do nothing at all than release an update 
 RM>> that makes things worse by making too many technical 
 RM>> compromises in a (I believe) mistaken effort to please 
 RM>> everyone. 

 > That must describe George's attempt to satisfy you because there 
 > were no such compromises in the draft that I submitted to you and 
 > which pleased you so much at the time.  The current specification 
 > is a joke.  My draft would have at least fixed that.  You could 
 > have added your new changes later.  Instead you have chosen to 
 > ignore the promise you made to act quickly and have redefined the 
 > FTSC's charter without notice.

You'll get no argument from me as to the inadequacy of the current <20>
document.  As I said above, it was never intended to be a standard.

I do not believe that your draft would have fixed anything.  I once did, <20>
but I CHANGED MY MIND!

This business of FTSC's charter has gone far enough, IMHO.  Since this <20>
message is also going to TJ, and since he has participated, even led, many <20>
of FTSC's discussions in the past few years, I'll leave it to him to <20>
comment further on this issue.  What I have changed is my particular <20>
feelings on one aspect of FTSC's task.  My vote on FTSC proposals does not <20>
count any more than that of any other of the fifty-something other <20>
members.  My agreement with TJ allows me to use his marks on documents <20>
related to FidoNet technical standards and related matters.  That's all - <20>
nothing more.  In reality, that is FTSC's charter, and it can be revoked <20>
by TJ any time he feels it necessary.  I am quite comfortable with this.  <20>
It's up to the developers and users in FidoNet, to decide on the ultimate <20>
value of our work.

You seem to repeatedly assume that I, personally, have chosen what FTSC <20>
will consider or debate.  Since both George and TJ are FTSC members, I'll <20>
leave it to them and any other FTSC member you may choose to ask to tell <20>
you if your paranoia is justified.
  
 RM>> I do appreciate your contributions.  You started this ball 
 RM>> rolling and George has put in a lot of effort as well.  But 
 RM>> the final decision as the to contents of any FTSC document 
 RM>> is up to FTSC's members.

 > The contents of FTSC documents are becoming less and less 
 > important, and that sad situation is only made worse by the way 
 > you are handling the FTS-0004 draft.

I have no misconceptions whatever as to the backbone's opinion of FTSC.  <20>
You (as a group) have repeatedly tried to use FTSC as a way to force your <20>
personal technical opinions down the throats of FidoNet members.  Each <20>
time you've attempted this, it's been the membership of FidoNet at large, <20>
not FTSC, that has forced you to back down.  If you (meaning the backbone <20>
as a group) wish to attempt it again, then by all means have at it.  I'd <20>
think by this time you would have learned from your mistakes, but what do <20>
I know? 

As I said in my previous note, my vacation starts on 17-Aug and I intend <20>
to spend part of it writing an alternate draft to put to the members for a <20>
straw poll.  I still fail to see how giving the membership an opportunity <20>
to choose which path they think is better is such a threat to your <20>
proposal - these guys are pretty sharp and if I'm as wrong as you and <20>
George seem to think I am, they will no doubt tell me in resounding words. <20>
 They certainly haven't shrunk from doing so in the past.

Also, if you do not feel George's current spec reflects your opinions <20>
accurately, or if you feel George has somehow weakened your original <20>
document, then please (in the next couple of weeks) submit your own draft. <20>
 I'll put it to the members for comment and include it in the straw poll.

Until I have actually put my modification of George's and your draft to <20>
the membership, I will have no further comment on this issue.  I'm in the <20>
middle of the first large-scale remodeling my house has had in 25 years <20>
and am also putting in 12-14 hour days six (and this week seven) days a <20>
week on a project at work, and I simply don't have time to spend on this <20>
until my vacation.

I doubt if it will make you feel any better, but if FTSC's members should <20>
chose the non-change path instead of the concensus opinion (as put into <20>
words by me) we arrived at earlier this year, then you have my word I'll <20>
put the final draft up for public comment in FidoNews, followed by a <20>
ratification vote by the members, without delay.  I'll also publicly <20>
support whatever the members choose.  Are you willing to make the same <20>
committment? 



Peace,
Rick

Original Message Date: 07 Aug 92  18:05:17
From: Tom Jennings on 1:125/111
To: Rick Moore on 1:115/333
Subj: re: FTS-0004 Revision
^AINTL 1:115/333 1:125/111
You are amazingly generous to argue with this guy, whoever he is. (I 
dont even know what BOP is.)
 
Since you basically asked :-), here's my 2-cents worth:
 
I think John Souvestre is a bid misled as to how the world works, and 
the incredible amount of discussion and -- compromise -- that goes on 
in FTSC. 
 
His problem is a common one -- his correctness is so obvious to  him, 
that either we are completely blind or stupid (which he can dismiss 
pretty quickly) or we are intentionally blocking his correct idea. 
Anything but admit the process doesn't work like he imagines/wants. 
 
People with this problem aren't limited to FidoNet, obviously. 
 
YOu can also tell him *I* nor anyone else *likes* the process, 
particularly, and in fact it doesn't go in anyone's particular 
direction.
 
For the last year or so, the FTSC most decidedly has NOT been an ego 
battle. It has become a pretty damn rational and fair and 
well-distributed group of peers compromising on their own programs for 
what they think is the best path for the FIdoNet. 
 
"What they think is the best..." is subjective -- and workable only 
because it comes out of a group process, that takes months to unfold. 
 
To think one or a few people can do better is naive. To insist on it 
ignorant, and to argue foolish. There's 15,000 computers in FidoNet, 
with about 1,000,000 users (EFF's estimate), to think one person knows 
better than some subset of authors and "admin" types and users, over a 
long period of time, is completely ridiculuous.