Re: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF

Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com> Thu, 14 June 2018 20:59 UTC

Return-Path: <adam@nostrum.com>
X-Original-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: i18nrp@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id D7B5A130F0E; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:59:57 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.879
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.879 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, T_SPF_HELO_PERMERROR=0.01, T_SPF_PERMERROR=0.01, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([4.31.198.44]) by localhost (ietfa.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Ff6x0ujTKgbs; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from nostrum.com (raven-v6.nostrum.com [IPv6:2001:470:d:1130::1]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 (128/128 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 7B492130E2F; Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:59:55 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from Orochi.local ([196.52.19.217]) (authenticated bits=0) by nostrum.com (8.15.2/8.15.2) with ESMTPSA id w5EKxktV055367 (version=TLSv1.2 cipher=ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256 bits=128 verify=NO); Thu, 14 Jun 2018 15:59:53 -0500 (CDT) (envelope-from adam@nostrum.com)
X-Authentication-Warning: raven.nostrum.com: Host [196.52.19.217] claimed to be Orochi.local
From: Adam Roach <adam@nostrum.com>
To: i18nrp@ietf.org
Cc: IETF list <ietf@ietf.org>
Reply-To: i18nrp@ietf.org
References: <f997170c-3062-0241-e58d-7a3415fba983@nostrum.com>
Message-ID: <6e1a7391-3db2-dc3f-450c-21f2a265834e@nostrum.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 13:59:47 -0700
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Macintosh; Intel Mac OS X 10.10; rv:52.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/52.8.0
MIME-Version: 1.0
In-Reply-To: <f997170c-3062-0241-e58d-7a3415fba983@nostrum.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Content-Language: en-US
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/i18nrp/FDYu5Djt5njZSeHGw-rr5V5qRsQ>
Subject: Re: [I18nrp] Additional input needed for i18nRP BOF
X-BeenThere: i18nrp@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.26
Precedence: list
List-Id: Internationalization Review Procedures <i18nrp.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/i18nrp/>
List-Post: <mailto:i18nrp@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp>, <mailto:i18nrp-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 14 Jun 2018 20:59:58 -0000

Based on the proposals and discussion we've seen in the past week, this 
BOF will be meeting in Montreal. Many thanks to Peter St. Andre and Pete 
Resnick for agreeing to chair the session.

/a

On 6/5/18 21:44, Adam Roach wrote:
> On today's BOF approval call, the IESG and IAB had an in-depth 
> discussion of the i18nRP BOF proposal. One of the topics that was most 
> discussed is a concern that the BOF does not have a clear path to 
> success, largely because the proposal has very little discussion of 
> proposed potential outcomes. While we do not expect the proponents to 
> presuppose an outcome, we believe that achieving a positive outcome 
> requires one or more specific proposals to serve as a basis for the 
> conversation.
>
> At the same time, the volume of traffic on the IETF mailing list on 
> this topic does seem to demonstrate that there is interest in 
> discussing topics related to internationalization. The ART area 
> directors have therefore provisionally approved the BOF, subject to 
> the proponents and/or any other interested parties providing concrete 
> proposals as a basis for discussion.
>
> Concretely, this means that the secretariat has been requested to 
> schedule a one-hour slot for the Montreal meeting for the proposed 
> BOF. If no concrete proposals for procedural approaches to address the 
> issues described by the BOF proponents are available by Wednesday, 
> June 13th, the secretariat will be requested to remove the BOF from 
> the schedule.
>
> Although it did not come up during the call, I personally wish to 
> point out that open-ended brainstorming sessions without concrete 
> proposals are typically handled as unofficial side-meetings (either in 
> person or virtually). If the BOF proponents wish to maintain the 
> open-ended brainstorm session described in the current proposal, the 
> side meeting scheduling mechanism remains available; and I would be 
> happy to help out should any difficulties occur in using that mechanism.
>
> Please send proposals and any other follow-up messages to i18nrp@ietf.org
>
> /a
>
> _______________________________________________
> i18nRP mailing list
> i18nRP@ietf.org
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/i18nrp