Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

[Yoav Nir <[e-mail]>]

Hi Jordi.

I think a more pertinent question is how may of us can carry on a technical conversation in Spanish vs English vs Chinese.

It’s not enough to be able to order at a restaurant or tell a taxi driver where you want to go. I can do that and it’s probably true for many of our attendees from the US.  But I don’t speak it well enough to carry on a technical conversation. I would probably need Google translate if I wanted to write this message is Spanish.

I think on this criterion English wins out. Even if you count potential rather than current participants.

Yoav

> On 19 Apr 2017, at 12:01, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]> wrote:
> 
> The problem comes from non-being a native speaker, as definitively that means that many times you “translate” from your mother tongue. And in this case, it seems, according to many sources, English and Chinese is declining across the time vs Spanish. Most of the sources state that Spanish is the 2nd one right now, some indicate it is Hindi, but English is always after Spanish (again, native speakers):
> 
> https://www.tomedes.com/top-10-languages-natively-spoken.php
> 
> http://www.vistawide.com/languages/top_30_languages.htm
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_demography
> 
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers
> 
> The latest info from 2016, which I’ve found only in spanish, seems to confirm the trend and in 2016 the censed number of native spanish speakers raised to 472 millions, 567 as second language, which agains confirms Chinesse being the first, Spanish the second (7,8% of total population).
> 
> http://www.cervantes.es/imagenes/File/prensa/EspanolLenguaViva16.pdf
> 
> Regards,
> Jordi
> 
> 
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ietf <[e-mail]> en nombre de Toerless Eckert <[e-mail]>
> Responder a: <[e-mail]>
> Fecha: martes, 18 de abril de 2017, 23:09
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>
> CC: "[e-mail]" <[e-mail]>
> Asunto: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
> 
>    On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:54:09PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>> This shows something that I believe most of the native English IETF participants usually don???t realize when having discussion (I???m referring here in general, also technical discussions) with non-native speakers, and how difficult is for the others. Maybe we should switch to Chinese as the default IETF language, or Spanish, as they have more speakers worldwide than English!
> 
>    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers
> 
>    According to that page, spanish does not have more speakers worldwide than english, but
>    rather the opposite. And IMHO, the relevant number is really just the number of L2
>    (second language) speakers, and thats lead by english, followed by malay, french,
>    mandarin, arabic, hindi, russian, urdu, swahili and then spanish!
> 
>> I???m still believe that IAOC attitude is not justified at all, and if we don???t have answers from them by next Monday, we should consider a recall process. Hopefully is not the case.
> 
>    What do you think is the IAOC attitude ? All i read was very noncommittal and "we
>    still collect information".
> 
>    I do not even know what the metric for selection is. I hope it is not to make the
>    most vocal mailing list participants most happy. I would start with excluding the least
>    number of candidate participants excluded by travel policies, then the lowest price for
>    median particiants (flight, hotel, food) and then most convenient. I think
>    IAOC somehow takes these factors into account, but i can not remember that they did send
>    their most concrete data for these factors for various countries to the mailing list.
> 
>    Cheers
>        Toerless
> 
> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> -----Mensaje original-----
>> De: ietf <[e-mail]>; en nombre de JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <[e-mail]>;
>> Responder a: < [e-mail]>;
>> Fecha: viernes, 14 de abril de 2017, 01:24
>> Para: <[e-mail]>;
>> Asunto: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
>> 
>> Well, for some countries what Trump said, has already been a fact, for example the prohibition to have computers on board. Is not that the case?
>> 
>> Whatever we want to decide, cancel SF or not, it may highly depend on budget, we like it or not. And that means that we need answers:
>> 
>>    If we cancel San Francisco, how much that is going to cost to the IETF for each of two planned meetings?
>> 
>>    Can we cancel the actual hotel contract considering the new US situation? If not, has this been considered for new contracts to avoid this problem?
>> 
>>    Otherwise there is any reason that can justify the lack of transparency in this?
>> 
>> The problem is so big for this community that I don???t even agree that the IAOC should take the decision. It must be a collective one, especially when the IAOC is demonstrating thru facts that they don???t care that we are discussing and wasting our time without the minimum relevant data, this is disrespectful and even more, not responding to emails since even since years ago, shows lack of education
>> 
>> Regards,
>> Jordi
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> **********************************************
>> IPv4 is over
>> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>> http://www.consulintel.es
>> The IPv6 Company
>> 
>> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>> 
>> 
> 
>    --
>    ---
>    [e-mail]
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
> 
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, including attached files, is prohibited.
> 
> 
>