Re: [I18ndir] Getting restarted and triage

[Asmus Freytag <[e-mail]>]

John,

some of us don't have the time to thrash to death things like Patrik's 
draft over minute issues, like whether to consider the single DISALLOWED 
character for Unicode 12.1 a technical omission.

If we can't find ways to remove this artificial friction, we won't see 
more vigorous involvement.

Notably, such hyperfocus on minutiae of little practical impact is 
absent from successful projects in the i18n arena.

A./


On 6/21/2019 5:46 PM, John C Klensin wrote:
>
> --On Friday, June 21, 2019 18:42 -0400 John Levine
> <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> In article <F2A317B2420BA48FC2A23176@PSB> you write:
>>> I've read Barry's note, which seems entirely reasonable.  As
>>> you (and I trust most other's here) have noticed, while
>>> waiting I did post a note to the IDNAbis list asking for
>>> review and feedback on the theory that, if anyone on that
>>> list but not on this one had something to say / contribute,
>>> we should listen. So far the silence has been deafening which
>>> I can interpret either as ...
>> It's on my List of Things to Do Immediately.  You know how it
>> is.
> Oh, yes.
>
> But one guess as to what is causing Pete's difficulties in
> getting responses to his triage question is that I18N issues
> generally, and perhaps IDNA-related ones in particular, have
> gotten into that state and that List for everyone here
> (including Pete's and Peter's and, probably given the progress
> on draft-faltstrom-unicode12-00 since March 11th, Alexey's).
> While we've been saying things in terms of "insufficient
> expertise" for i18n issues, it may be equally true that is just
> has not been high enough priority for anyone with expertise or
> otherwise in the critical path.
>
> If that is the case, then the question --and, again, the
> question since Patrik and I requested the BoF over a year ago --
> is whether we have a plan about changing that (maybe easier than
> finding more expertise and maybe not) or whether should be
> making another plan entirely, presumably one that gets the IETF
> out of the critical path.
>
>     john
>
>
>