IETF Logo Mail Archive

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

"Patrik Fältström " <paf@frobbit.se> Fri, 01 June 2018 05:46 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 6129D127010 for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 22:46:43 -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 DNKzXqAkT4EW for <ietf@ietfa.amsl.com>; Thu, 31 May 2018 22:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from mail.frobbit.se (mail.frobbit.se [IPv6:2a02:80:3ffe::176]) (using TLSv1.2 with cipher AECDH-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by ietfa.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTPS id 8E217126C0F for <ietf@ietf.org>; Thu, 31 May 2018 22:46:41 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from [192.71.80.208] (vpn-client-208.netnod.se [192.71.80.208]) by mail.frobbit.se (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id A1C5922F46; Fri, 1 Jun 2018 07:46:37 +0200 (CEST)
From: Patrik Fältström <paf@frobbit.se>
To: Nico Williams <nico@cryptonector.com>
Cc: Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@mozilla.com>, John C Klensin <john-ietf@jck.com>, John Levine <johnl@taugh.com>, ietf@ietf.org
Subject: Re: Possible BofF question -- I18n (was: Re: Possible OBF question -- I18n)
Date: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 07:46:36 +0200
X-Mailer: MailMate (2.0BETAr6113)
Message-ID: <A13FFF23-49BD-459D-8B5B-D3448154EEBC@frobbit.se>
In-Reply-To: <20180601041949.GH14446@localhost>
References: <20180530231127.17198276FEE3@ary.qy> <071E6235FE7B088A2B56A238@PSB> <0093E2CD-670E-47B6-A286-4FDEB140FAD9@frobbit.se> <20180531172228.GF14446@localhost> <383c2404-7beb-63e9-b2b2-e75fd1b174f1@mozilla.com> <20180601041949.GH14446@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/signed; boundary="=_MailMate_2B1DFE44-63FD-4479-822C-E0250AE3891A_="; micalg="pgp-sha1"; protocol="application/pgp-signature"
Archived-At: <https://mailarchive.ietf.org/arch/msg/ietf/Z7lTmjfq9qPPuAN2wJ7R0fqj4xM>
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: Fri, 01 Jun 2018 05:46:44 -0000

On 1 Jun 2018, at 6:19, Nico Williams wrote:

> PS: Really, I'm shocked at this thread.  I don't get it.  What series of    events is causing the sad, utter despair on display here?  I've not
>     been following the IETF all that much, so it's possible I missed
>     some disasters.  Can they have been so bad?  Please fill me in on
>     them.

That we have for example:

- Had Unicode/IDNA discussions with comments from very very few people, and I think three that "did send text"
- Had IAB close a directorate on the topic
- Had Precis "just about" get the review they needed to call consensus

This is what I have seen.

So, very very very few people actually "show up" in discussions.

This is why I say "priority" is important.

   paf

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email