Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

"Randy Presuhn" <> Mon, 26 May 2008 02:58 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from [] (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 769E33A6B0C; Sun, 25 May 2008 19:58:49 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 6E14A3A6781 for <>; Sun, 25 May 2008 19:58:48 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -0.554
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.554 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-0.555, BAYES_50=0.001]
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id pku8H1JF7KCA for <>; Sun, 25 May 2008 19:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9EB9C3A6B0C for <>; Sun, 25 May 2008 19:58:47 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327;; b=aRrWYMadV3sK13Xjix5C7B0jTn2ox2Po85ykNipT2mKaMVILzwzZNH2JEUWDRqcc; h=Received:Message-ID:From:To:References:Subject:Date:MIME-Version:Content-Type:Content-Transfer-Encoding:X-Priority:X-MSMail-Priority:X-Mailer:X-MimeOLE:X-ELNK-Trace:X-Originating-IP;
Received: from [] (helo=oemcomputer) by with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <>) id 1K0SvA-0005dt-Hf for; Sun, 25 May 2008 22:58:48 -0400
Message-ID: <008a01c8bedc$72b97b20$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <>
References: <01c301c8bbe5$8c2810c0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
Date: Sun, 25 May 2008 19:58:59 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Priority: 3
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 6.00.2800.1478
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V6.00.2800.1478
X-ELNK-Trace: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d888a63b7957ab9b23b3c53025ae05d77aa30f2c90162eb57962350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi -

As WG co-chair...

Ok, I've tallied the responses.  One was sent directly to me, rather
than to the mailing list.  One was sent after the deadline.
Here's the tally including those two:

Q1: A-4 B-9 C-4
Q2: A-8 B-5 C-4

Excluding those two responses, it looks like:
Q1: A-3 B-9 C-3
Q2: A-7 B-5 C-3

>From this I'm concluding that we have a *rough* consensus to
"reinstate" extlang.

This was not an easy decision, and it was not undertaken lightly,
particularly since we'd been working on the assumption that we'd
polished of the extlang issue some months ago.

However, with equal numbers objecting to each of the proposals,
and a 2-to-1 preference for Q2 among those favoring a proposal,
I think the sense of the WG is clear enough for us to move on.

ltru co-chair

Ltru mailing list