Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Tue, 14 July 2009 01:13 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 771ED3A6EA0 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:13:39 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.32
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.32 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.279, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([64.170.98.32]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com [127.0.0.1]) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id kaa0vnq7fpMS for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net [209.86.89.66]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id A95AF3A6DE8 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:13:38 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=W2v4b7aaRoNKmDHRrZr6dsgxx6oNJOuAN0IvIBQ1wXwb1umrqPYzJ5h/nkaNllB6; 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 [99.41.48.152] (helo=oemcomputer) by elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1MQWaq-0006DB-1e for ltru@ietf.org; Mon, 13 Jul 2009 21:14:04 -0400
Message-ID: <000c01ca0420$91428200$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <mailman.113.1247511614.10405.ltru@ietf.org> <1AD53C39B9F24C12BC31AB76AF5D1B89@DGBP7M81>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:15:24 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
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: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88884f945684cbf6968f8a6e9a3b569520b4aad4b20070f5cd2350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
X-Originating-IP: 99.41.48.152
Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.9
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 14 Jul 2009 01:13:39 -0000

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <doug@ewellic.org>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 5:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)
...
> I specifically would not want to recharter for the purpose of tweaking 
> the existing text.  In fact, I might not participate in a LTRU 3.0 at 
> all if tweaking the existing text turns out to take a large percentage 
> of the WG's time, as it did in LTRU 2.0.
...

As a technical contributor...
(1) I'm not sure how a "language tag registry update" WG could be
chartered that wouldn't involve tweaking existing text.  Unless
operational experience had demonstrated that text to be seriously
broken, I'd see no point in re-opening it.

As co-chair...
(2) Is there any purpose for which you could conceive of a rechartering
of the WG that you *would* support?

Randy