Re: [I18n-discuss] [Idna-update] [precis] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues

[Asmus Freytag <[e-mail]>]

On 12/4/2018 4:21 PM, Vint Cerf wrote:
> suggestion:
>
> set up the advisory group and allow it to offer advice to the 
> appropriate AD.
> This same advisory group can reasonably share its findings more generally,
> thereby "educating...." the rest of the community. No power to block 
> should
> either explicitly or implicitly be inferred by the creation of the 
> advisory body.

This.

A./


>
> vint
>
>
> On Tue, Dec 4, 2018 at 7:09 PM Ben Campbell <[e-mail] 
> <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>
>     Responding to a couple of points, inline:
>
>>     On Dec 4, 2018, at 5:54 PM, Pete Resnick <[e-mail]
>>     <mailto:[e-mail]>> wrote:
>>
>>     Trimming a bit:
>>
>>     On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:37, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>>         Howdy Pete,
>>
>>
>>         Please re-read John's message, which includes this:
>>
>>         "its mission was
>>         to advise, inform, and perhaps even educate the community on
>>         i18n issues, rather than merely advising the ART ADs and/or
>>         designating people to perform reviews late in the Last Call
>>         cycle. "
>>
>>         As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with an AD
>>         requesting a
>>         review of a specific individual or set of individuals. But
>>         John's message
>>         is highlighting that this group is meant to be something
>>         different than the
>>         usual directorate.
>>
>>     Certainly to some small extent all of the directorates "advise,
>>     inform, and perhaps even educate the community", as each is
>>     willing to do early reviews, and some of the advisory groups
>>     (like the assorted "Doctors") will help a WG when directly
>>     solicited by the WG. The fact that those duties get a more formal
>>     mention in the mission of the i18n directorate doesn't give me
>>     pause. But what I was responding to was this part of your earlier
>>     message:
>>
>>             On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>
>>                 ...I inferred that the intent was to set up a group
>>                 with an
>>                 independent authority to foster work or block documents.
>>
>>     Like Ben, I see nothing in John's words (or any of the
>>     discussions of the directorate) that indicate any power to "block
>>     documents", let alone some other sort of special "independent
>>     authority" (beyond what we already have experience with). And
>>     that seems the real basis for your objection. I think perhaps
>>     you're tilting at a windmill
>>
>>
>
>     As an ART AD, my expectation is that the directorates only power
>     to block documents  would be to convince a (typically ART) AD to
>     do so.
>
>>         That concerns me, especially if it is meant to have a
>>         review power beyond "advising the ART ADs", which is what (ART)
>>         directorates do. Soliciting and receiving that advice is the
>>         state you're
>>         pointing to, and but John has asserted this is not that.
>>
>>     John has asserted that it is not /only/ that. But the only thing
>>     that it appears to be beyond that is a group that can, as John
>>     said, "advise, inform, and perhaps even educate the community".
>>
>>         Given that
>>         assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a
>>         voice in what it
>>         is instead.
>>
>>     If it had any additional authority, I would agree. It does not
>>     appear to, and therefore I do not.
>>
>>         I also am disappointed that the ART ADs did not simply ask
>>         the relevant
>>         questions of the people that they would or will put on the
>>         Directorate, if
>>         they are seeking the usual sort of advice. There is no power
>>         in the advice
>>         coming from a directorate rather than Individual 1 or 2. But
>>         that is a
>>         timing question, not a process point.
>>
>>     There is no power, but often there is more organization. That
>>     seems like a legitimate reason for the pause.
>>
>     At the risk of putting words into Alexey’s mouth, I think this was
>     an exceptional case due to the fact that the directorate creation
>     was imminent, but perhaps not so imminent that it could finish
>     it’s first review before the LC ended. It was Alexey’s choice to
>     stop the LC, but he might have chosen the same even if he just
>     asked an individual to do an expert review.
>
>     Thanks!
>
>     Ben.
>     _______________________________________________
>     IDNA-UPDATE mailing list
>     [e-mail] <mailto:[e-mail]>
>     https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/idna-update
>
>
>
> -- 
> New postal address:
> Google
> 1875 Explorer Street, 10th Floor
> Reston, VA 20190
>
> _______________________________________________
> I18n-discuss mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.iab.org/mailman/listinfo/i18n-discuss