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?

)\/(ark