Re: [Ltru] Resolving issues

Martin Duerst <> Mon, 02 July 2007 00:08 UTC

Return-path: <>
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I59Sz-0007Pd-0p; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:08:33 -0400
Received: from ltru by with local (Exim 4.43) id 1I59Sy-0007KS-Gv for; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:08:32 -0400
Received: from [] ( by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I59Sy-0007Gz-4O for; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:08:32 -0400
Received: from ([]) by with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1I59Su-0005hx-9V for; Sun, 01 Jul 2007 20:08:32 -0400
Received: from (scmse2 []) by (secret/secret) with SMTP id l6208Q6A028390 for <>; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:08:26 +0900 (JST)
Received: from ( by via smtp id 1b89_5b21bdee_2830_11dc_8510_0014221f2a2d; Mon, 02 Jul 2007 09:08:26 +0900
Received: from ([]:43720) by with [XMail 1.22 ESMTP Server] id <SCF552> for <> from <>; Mon, 2 Jul 2007 09:06:21 +0900
Message-Id: <>
X-Sender: duerst@localhost
X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 6J
Date: Sun, 01 Jul 2007 11:01:32 +0900
To: Mark Davis <>, LTRU Working Group <>
From: Martin Duerst <>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Resolving issues
In-Reply-To: < >
References: <>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e1e48a527f609d1be2bc8d8a70eb76cb
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>

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.

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?

Also, it would be good to give a more specific pointer, i.e.

>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).

Regards,    Martin.

#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University

Ltru mailing list