[Ltru] Rechartering (in general)

"Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> Wed, 15 July 2009 23:19 UTC

Return-Path: <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
X-Original-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Delivered-To: ltru@core3.amsl.com
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 196BA28C17B for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:19:44 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -2.599
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-2.599 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=0.000, BAYES_00=-2.599]
Received: from mail.ietf.org ([]) by localhost (core3.amsl.com []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id FIa3uwT9smsT for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:19:43 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net (elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net []) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 217CE3A6C80 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 16:18:51 -0700 (PDT)
DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=dk20050327; d=mindspring.com; b=tMKgYeK7x5CldcBM5M+5eE08xTlYm+57oHnIMzILhWUK+UCV0KspnT2c/CNJPNJv; 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 elasmtp-spurfowl.atl.sa.earthlink.net with esmtpa (Exim 4.67) (envelope-from <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>) id 1MRCNp-0007vh-Sf for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 15 Jul 2009 17:51:26 -0400
Message-ID: <005e01ca0596$99c15ce0$6801a8c0@oemcomputer>
From: Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
To: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
References: <C683A5F6.F25A%kent.karlsson14@comhem.se><8D97027965E89F488BC87B919382D9FD0510BEC2@ussdixms01.am.sony.com><30b660a20907151031i6e8bbeedyc4d33ffa59cce113@mail.gmail.com><203d01ca058c$7bd8da50$0c00a8c0@CPQ86763045110> <30b660a20907151415o36cdaf8br5d5ec951688ebdac@mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 14:52:50 -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: 4488c18417c9426da92b9037bc8bcf44d4c20f6b8d69d88884f945684cbf69688bef5a55f69dfec519fb12b332b185fb350badd9bab72f9c350badd9bab72f9c
Subject: [Ltru] Rechartering (in general)
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: Wed, 15 Jul 2009 23:19:44 -0000

Hi -

As co-chair...

The thread "[Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW:Anomalyinupcomingregistry)"
seems to have reached rough consensus that it does not make sense to recharter
at this time in order to cope with ISO's upcoming 639-6.

Does anyone see any other potential good reasons to recharter the ltru working
group at this time?  I don't care about theoretical possibilities.
I'm only interested in work that:

  (1) working group participants feel is important;

  (2) to which working group participants would commit resources; 

  (3) should commence in the near future; and

  (4) could not be accomplished through the normal operation of
      ietf-languages@iana.org and the registry

In other words, if you don't personally see it as important, or you are
not personally willing to spend time writing / reviewing I-Ds on the
issue, or if you think it can reasonably be handled under a 4646bis regime,
or if you think it should be started 18 months or so from now, then I don't
want to hear about it.