= Сообщение: 1666 из 7125 ====================================== FTSC_PUBLIC = От : Nicholas Boel 1:154/701 21 Dec 14 16:43:38 Кому : mark lewis 21 Dec 14 16:43:38 Тема : Re: Keeping matters on topic in here FGHI : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:154/701+54974ef3 На : area://FTSC_PUBLIC?msgid=1:3634/12.0+49718551 = Кодировка сообщения определена как: UTF-8 ================================== ============================================================================== Hello mark,
On 21 Dec 14 14:59, mark lewis wrote to Nicholas Boel:
NB>> Looks like about 8 documents were revised and/or created in the NB>> past week, while not one was mentioned or brought up for NB>> discussion in this echo.
ml> they're not supposed to be are they? these are existing documents that ml> the FTSC has had on its table for a while...
I don't know or care if they are "supposed" to be, the fact it that it would be NICE for others NOT involved with the FTSC to be able to keep up on what was done and/or accomplished recently without having to wade through the website. After all, we're trying to keep people interested in the "text based" part of Fidonet, and not push them to websites, right?
NB>> What exactly is this echo intended for again?
ml> communication with the FTSC about technical matters...
Yet none of that happens, and when it does, it seems to be deemed "off-topic".
ml> eg: ml> 1. developers wanting clarification on the implementation of ml> something. 2. corrections to published documents that may have been ml> missed. 3. public presentation of possible new proposals for ml> discussion.
NB>> Someone keeps forcing intention while calling everything else NB>> "off-topic", yet I fail to see anything happening that actually NB>> could be considered "on-topic" in here, either!
ml> i'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say here :/
Sorry to hear that. Even after re-reading what I wrote it sounds pretty clear to me.
NB>> Twice, I've asked for these revised/re-released or newly created NB>> documents to be posted in here (in text format) so that we NB>> actually have something to discuss, if we care to, in revelance NB>> to being "on-topic" per the moderator's rules. I seem to still be NB>> waiting for a response from the one who decides what is and is NB>> not "on-topic" in this echo, though. :(
ml> why not access the published ones and bring up your questions as noted ml> in example #1 or #2 above?
That idea makes this echo more and more pointless. Why are you pushing people to the website when it could easily be pasted here for the public to view and discuss, possibly drumming up much more conversation that could (maybe, if the moderator cares enough about the subject) possibly be much more on-topic than anything that has been discussed here in the last 2-3 years?
