Re: Possible BofF question -- I18n (was: Re: Possible OBF question -- I18n)

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Thu, 31 May 2018 15:02 UTC

Return-Path: <paf@frobbit.se>
X-Original-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ietf@ietfa.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B32F012DA4A for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 08:02:21 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.622
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.622 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, FROM_EXCESS_BASE64=0.979, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_LOW=-0.7, SPF_PASS=-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 dh0bGZkQ4ieI for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 08:02:19 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [85.30.129.185]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id B7A6F12D890 for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 May 2018 08:02:18 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.168.1.9] (d83-183-96-96.cust.tele2.se [83.183.96.96]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id C31052321E; Thu, 31 May 2018 17:02:15 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: John R Levine <johnl@taugh.com>
Cc: John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, IETF general list <ietf@ietf.org>
Subject: Re: Possible BofF question -- I18n (was: Re: Possible OBF question -- I18n)
Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 17:02:15 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6111)
Message-ID: <7B701113-87D5-42D3-B8B0-B7B023631B0F@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <alpine.OSX.2.21.1805310929220.3605@ary.qy>
References: <20180530231127.17198276FEE3@ary.qy> <071E6235FE7B088A2B56A238@PSB> <0093E2CD-670E-47B6-A286-4FDEB140FAD9@frobbit.se> <alpine.OSX.2.21.1805310929220.3605@ary.qy>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_A670E929-9231-40EA-BE9D-ED03248795E1_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/UieAM_aMpXXOVIokrb10pgPBGDE>
X-BeenThere: ietf@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.22
Precedence: list
List-Id: IETF-Discussion <ietf.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/options/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/browse/ietf/>
List-Post: <mailto:ietf@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf>, <mailto:ietf-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Thu, 31 May 2018 15:02:22 -0000

On 31 May 2018, at 15:37, John R Levine wrote:

> On Thu, 31 May 2018, Patrik Fältström wrote:
>> The serious question here is if IETF do have enough competence in I18N space or if IETF should drop that ball and give to some other SDO.
>
> But the related question is whether any other SDO is any better.

+1

Or that just thinking of moving things away from IETF would create dependencies we do not like, so that people, organizations and other participants start prioritize differently?

> I18N needs an unusual combination of computer and linguistic skills.  I would be surprised if there were a lot of any people anywhere who have them both.

I know there are more than the three four five that normally respond to things. I think to start with we talk about coordination and prioritization so that we get this, although small, group of people more effective.

I hope that would bring the interest up to speed enough to make it possible for IETF (and IAB) say we (as in the SDO) do have enough skills in this area to make good decisions. I.e. consensus is possible to conclude, and we trust the outcome of the "normal" IETF consensus based process.

And, to conclude, having a BOF to talk about this is I think excellent.

    paf