Re: [Ltru] Resolving issues

"Mark Davis" <mark.davis@icu-project.org> Mon, 02 July 2007 00:32 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I59qS-0007c7-Cz; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:32:48 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I59qR-0007c2-9z for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:32:47 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I59qR-0007bt-0Q for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:32:47 -0400
Received: from py-out-1112.google.com ([64.233.166.177]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I59qM-0003Q1-Hp for ltru@ietf.org; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:32:46 -0400
Received: by py-out-1112.google.com with SMTP id f31so3901947pyh for <ltru@ietf.org>; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:32:41 -0700 (PDT)
DKIM-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=GKuOxQyX/GFDWyfVqMF6YWxn26IsMkyQHu3mSCUtvUdaqf8oqeGpQr6ZrxoCOz07Y3FZabAr/NutEnv3bmz1F0SQQwgJZBbJcJtuBB5jAGnHVa1G0uOvcPePL1y0bheT1FTNGoqNGX4TbL44NlFw6De4vTs7OLeTnuQd++qb2cQ=
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=gmail.com; s=beta; h=received:message-id:date:from:sender:to:subject:cc:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:references:x-google-sender-auth; b=NkZ0JGwCiSdSAidHjIH8H0+YwQOPPPEF9smGnx+NwG3vpcsCdpq2X4LMZd23qtSzuxZlD10RB20QxuWN8GlAPmT2k0wCmpYfYeEoCahL2Qqcy9aR5hAXyzXR0lELLKWQNvo9ynCWHRkNwPFTUOUOtW103A/zdaIBzB5PKJTIUso=
Received: by 10.114.158.1 with SMTP id g1mr4629455wae.1183336360686; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Received: by 10.114.192.10 with HTTP; Sun, 1 Jul 2007 17:32:40 -0700 (PDT)
Message-ID: <30b660a20707011732n6bca450aj187400d05d3ba46c@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 17:32:40 -0700
From: Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
To: Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Resolving issues
In-Reply-To: <6.0.0.20.2.20070701105325.0ac7b750@localhost>
MIME-Version: 1.0
References: <30b660a20706291506jd82e202s8bbc931de10e24b3@mail.gmail.com> <6.0.0.20.2.20070701105325.0ac7b750@localhost>
X-Google-Sender-Auth: 7c0b60e3cd8d8d2b
X-Spam-Score: 0.1 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: a2c12dacc0736f14d6b540e805505a86
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============1766362715=="
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

On 6/30/07, Martin Duerst <duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp> wrote:
>
> with chair hat on:
>
> At 07:06 07/06/30, Mark Davis wrote:
> >Addison and I have been looking over some of the remaining issues, and
> have worked out some suggested language to resolve some open issues.
> >
> ><http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-06.html>
> http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-06.html<
> http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-06.html>
>
> You talk about issue*s* here, but below, I can proposed language for
> only one issue. Are we supposed to look at the above link for the
> other issues, or will language for other issues be proposed in
> forthcomming email, or what?


There will be some more with separate email titles as we work through them.

Also, it would be good to give a more specific pointer, i.e.
>
> http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-4646bis-06.html#subtagreviewer


Good suggestion.

>The IESG will solicit nominees for the position (initially or upon a
> vacancy) and seek to ascertain the candidates' qualifications.
> >
> >=>
> >
> >The IESG will solicit nominees for the position (upon adoption of this
> document or upon a vacancy) and then solicit feedback on the nominees'
> qualifications.
> >
> >Qualified candidates should be familiar with BCP 47 and its requirements;
> be willing to fairly, responsively, and judiciously administer the
> registration process; and be suitably informed about the issues of language
> identification so that they can draw upon and assess the claim and
> contributions of language experts and subtag requesters.
>
> as a technical (or, in this case, procedural) contributor:
>
> I think one big issue that isn't dealt with here is that the appointment
> is for an infinite term. I think it would be much better to have a
> limited term (e.g. two years), with a possibility for renewal.
> This gives a good chance for reviewing from both sides (both the
> reviewer as well as the IESG).


That sounds reasonable to me. Let's see what others think

Regards,    Martin.
>
>
>
>
>
> #-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
> #-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:duerst@it.aoyama.ac.jp
>
>


-- 
Mark
_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru