[I18ndir] Do we need an I18N WG? (Re: I-D on filesystem I18N)

[Nico Williams <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Jul 07, 2020 at 03:16:13PM -0400, John C Klensin wrote:
> At least most such reviews are almost certainly going to have to
> come from this directorate list because, whatever the strengths
> and weaknesses of this group, it probably includes almost
> everyone who has been active in the IETF on i18n work and who
> has a reasonable claim to broad expertise on at least some i18n
> topics (I can identify a few exceptions, but don't expect them
> to be active any time soon).  And, as we have repeatedly
> discovered working together, i18n documents (at least) get much
> better with active collaboration and discussion, not just
> reviews thrown over the wall.
> 
> However, with regard to doing that sort of collaboration
> (independent of a few reviews of documents from assorted IETF
> WGs), the directorate seems to be both disfunctional and lacking
> any form of leadership or guidance.   And, if we can't get
> enough collaboration (or some form of aggressive push-back), I
> think the experience with RFC 8753 and with 5891bis strongly
> suggests that more work on any of those documents may be a waste
> of effort.

If we're failing to review I-Ds, is that because

 - assignees are failing to do them,
 - the chairs are failing to assign reviewers,

or because

 - we're talking about I-Ds that come from within this group and we're
   not providing enough energy to see them progress?

If it's the last case, note that we're not a WG, but if we're expected
(or want to) have our own documents, then maybe we should be a WG rather
than a directorate, or at least maybe we ought to meet.

IMO we should replace the I18N directorate with an I18N WG.  The main
difference is that we could have milestones involving publication of
RFCs, and we could be expected to have regular and even interim
meetings, and perhaps we could continue to function as a directorate
responsible for reviewing other WGs' I-Ds that have or should have I18N
considerations.  If we don't have the energy for a WG, then at the very
least we should meet as a directorate once or twice a year.

Regarding energy, I would say that energy can be harnessed by having a
meeting at all, or at least that having meetings would better allow us
to gauge level of energy.

(Note: it's too late to schedule a BoF about creating an I18N WG at IETF 108.)

Nico
--