IETF Logo Mail Archive

Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

"Broome, Karen" <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com> Thu, 29 May 2008 02:27 UTC

Return-Path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
X-Original-To: ltru-archive@megatron.ietf.org
Delivered-To: ietfarch-ltru-archive@core3.amsl.com
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (localhost [127.0.0.1]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 2ABCD3A6993; Wed, 28 May 2008 19:27:13 -0700 (PDT)
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 CF13D3A6CE5 for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2008 19:27:11 -0700 (PDT)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at amsl.com
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -4.954
X-Spam-Level:
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-4.954 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[AWL=-1.645, BAYES_00=-2.599, FRT_OPPORTUN1=1.893, FRT_OPPORTUN2=1.397, RCVD_IN_DNSWL_MED=-4]
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 r49jefzw-W6e for <ltru@core3.amsl.com>; Wed, 28 May 2008 19:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound6-wa4-R.bigfish.com (outbound-wa4.frontbridge.com [216.32.181.16]) by core3.amsl.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id B90463A6B27 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Wed, 28 May 2008 19:27:10 -0700 (PDT)
Received: from outbound6-wa4.bigfish.com (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by outbound6-wa4-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 32235186AA8B for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 02:27:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail80-wa4-R.bigfish.com (unknown [10.8.14.252]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by outbound6-wa4.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 30CE116806B for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 02:27:20 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail80-wa4 (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by mail80-wa4-R.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 13B7E1398201 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 02:27:20 +0000 (UTC)
X-BigFish: VS-34(zz7efVzzzz1033ILz2dh6bh61h)
X-Spam-TCS-SCL: 0:0
X-MS-Exchange-Organization-Antispam-Report: OrigIP: 160.33.98.75;Service: EHS
Received: by mail80-wa4 (MessageSwitch) id 1212028039684450_15897; Thu, 29 May 2008 02:27:19 +0000 (UCT)
Received: from mail8.fw-bc.sony.com (mail8.fw-bc.sony.com [160.33.98.75]) by mail80-wa4.bigfish.com (Postfix) with ESMTP id 774EF1660072 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 02:27:19 +0000 (UTC)
Received: from mail1.sgo.in.sel.sony.com (mail1.sgo.in.sel.sony.com [43.130.1.111]) by mail8.fw-bc.sony.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4T2RIJp003932 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 02:27:18 GMT
Received: from ussdixhub21.spe.sony.com ([43.130.141.76]) by mail1.sgo.in.sel.sony.com (8.12.11/8.12.11) with ESMTP id m4T2RIes001043 for <ltru@ietf.org>; Thu, 29 May 2008 02:27:18 GMT
Received: from USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com ([43.130.141.74]) by ussdixhub21.spe.sony.com ([43.130.141.76]) with mapi; Wed, 28 May 2008 19:27:18 -0700
From: "Broome, Karen" <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>
To: "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>
Date: Wed, 28 May 2008 19:26:22 -0700
Thread-Topic: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
Thread-Index: AcjBJ+pzUbf8k/5gRcepzRoTLFZE7gAC3iJp
Message-ID: <E19FDBD7A3A7F04788F00E90915BD36C13C2528ABB@USSDIXMSG20.spe.sony.com>
References: <422633.90603.qm@web31813.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
In-Reply-To: <422633.90603.qm@web31813.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
MIME-Version: 1.0
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
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/pipermail/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>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

Why are people so afraid to restate their honest opinions on this? Why are people only voting in private? I'm getting private e-mail too.

I thought the primary goal was identification, not fallback. Without extlang, we lose some information the ISO standards otherwise contain.  I think we may be losing an oppportunity to clean up some historically muddy tags. I raise questions about identification and I am answered with arguments about fallback. I honestly fear this draft may not be an improvement for me.

Phrases like "throws in the towel," "my resistance is gone," "as neutral as I can be" ... Something does not feel good about this.


Karen Broome


________________________________________
From: ltru-bounces@ietf.org [ltru-bounces@ietf.org] On Behalf Of tex [textexin@xencraft.com]
Sent: Wednesday, May 28, 2008 6:03 PM
To: ltru@ietf.org
Subject: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

Aw heck. I have been trying hard to resist engaging on this for months and months, but now my resistance is gone...



If you don't mind late votes, then put me down for:



Q1: A

Q2: C



tex





Hi -

Martin and I double-checked the tally, and it turns out that

*two* responses were sent directly to me, rather than to the ltru@ietf.org mailing list. One was sent after the deadline.

Here's the tally including those three:

Q1: A-4 B-9 C-4

Q2: A-8 B-5 C-4

Excluding those three responses, it looks like:

Q1: A-2 B-9 C-3

Q2: A-7 B-5 C-2

Either way, the support for an extlang-less approach appears to be in he distinct minority, and there appears to be a marked preference (which we'll call a *rough* consensus) for "reinstating" extlang.

Or have a bunch of people changed their minds?

Randy


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

v2.23.0 | Report a Bug | By Email