On Sun, 21 Dec 2014, Nicholas Boel wrote to mark lewis:
ml> it has a lot of truth to it, too... like the way some insist that ml> certain documents be tossed into the reference library and it has ml> been known that they were among those against the document's ml> content... it looks like political motivation to keep the document ml> from becoming a standard instead of something technical keeping it ml> as a non-standard...
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 discussion NB> in this echo.
they're not supposed to be are they? these are existing documents that the FTSC has had on its table for a while...
NB> What exactly is this echo intended for again?
communication with the FTSC about technical matters...
eg: 1. developers wanting clarification on the implementation of something. 2. corrections to published documents that may have been missed. 3. public presentation of possible new proposals for 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!
i'm not sure i understand what you are trying to say here :/
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 to NB> 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 not NB> "on-topic" in this echo, though. :(
why not access the published ones and bring up your questions as noted in example #1 or #2 above?
