Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang

["Debbie Garside" <[e-mail]>]

Randy wrote:

> Agreed.  However, the recent discussion indicates that the
> group doesn't feel much urgency in moving on.  If the
> decision were solely up to me, I'd recommend shutting down
> the working group, letting the people that care about it
> fight it out, and then let them request a BOF at some future
> IETF meeting when they think they're ready to resume work as
> a working group.  (This is what happened when the SNMPv2
> working group missed its charter deadline by a far, far
> smaller margin.)

I think this would be a huge mistake.  It is very very important to make ISO
639-3 available within the LSR as soon as possible.  However, as I have
stated before, after this length of time it is important that we 'please' as
many end users as possible whilst bearing in mind that we are discussing
some of the worlds most spoken languages and their historical codes.

On the 27/5/2008 the following message was posted:

Mark wrote:
> > we should consider each of the applications of language tags:
> > identification, lookup, filtering, and Accept-Language, and
> be able to
> > have a reasoned judgment on the technical merits
>
Peter wrote in response:
> I would only add: we need to do this with *carefully*
> reasoned judgment, pausing to make sure the arguments
> presented really do stand up.

Debbie wrote in response:
>I think this is probably a good way forward.  It would be best to
>start a new thread for each application.  I would also add
>backward compatibility and historical usage to the pot.

I would ask the co-chairs to guide the WG in this direction and to advise
the WG that any other threads will be considered as temporarily off topic
until the extlang/no extlang issue is resolved.

Somebody may have already posted a similar request but I have not had time
to read the avalanche of mail this evening. We really need the WG to focus
now.

Best regards

Debbie



> -----Original Message-----
> From: [e-mail] [mailto:[e-mail]] On
> Behalf Of Randy Presuhn
> Sent: 29 May 2008 19:48
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
>
> Hi -
>
> > From: "Phillips, Addison" <[e-mail]>
> > To: "Randy Presuhn" <[e-mail]>; "LTRU Working
> > Group" <[e-mail]>
> > Sent: Thursday, May 29, 2008 7:51 AM
> > Subject: RE: [Ltru] Consensus call: extlang
> >
>
> > > One was sent after the deadline.
> >
> > If this was my vote (sent yesterday prior to your message), your
> > "revised totals" appear wrong, as I voted "A,B".
>
> The summary (with the late response) was sent out before your
> much later response.  Including the three late responses I've
> seen, it now comes to
> Q1 a-6 b-9 c-4
> Q2 a-8 b-6 c-5
>
> Not the clear-cut result any of us would have liked.
> (And for me, having a clear decision is much more important
> than the decision itself!)
>
> ...
> > This is not a situation in which either camp has a totally decisive
> > argument up its sleeve.
>
> This has been apparent for many, many months.
>
> > While I think this is the wrong way to go (obviously, as I
> supported
> > removing extlang), some kind of decision is desirable.
>
> Agreed.  However, the recent discussion indicates that the
> group doesn't feel much urgency in moving on.  If the
> decision were solely up to me, I'd recommend shutting down
> the working group, letting the people that care about it
> fight it out, and then let them request a BOF at some future
> IETF meeting when they think they're ready to resume work as
> a working group.  (This is what happened when the SNMPv2
> working group missed its charter deadline by a far, far
> smaller margin.)
>
> > As co-editor, my immediate concern is how to implement this.
> > Assuming that we don't do a new round of voting and
> persuasion, I can
> > hardly restore the text we had prior to removing extlang
> because some
> > serious editing has occurred since then.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > We will need to decide what criteria are used to register
> and maintain
> > extlangs as a result (a problem we were struggling with
> prior to the
> > decision to remove extlang). What will be necessary, I think, is a
> > stem-to-stern restore-and-edit pass with the particular notes of
> > interest sent to the list. The resulting draft will then need to be
> > reviewed by the list.
>
> Sounds reasonable.
>
> > If there is some doubt about whether the results of this consensus
> > call will hold, I would point out that this might be a
> useful exercise
> > in any event, as we can compare this putative "draft-15"
> > (incorporating feedback from the list, of course) to the
> current draft-14 more directly:
> > we can compare each other's cherry picking machines for
> elegance :-).
>
> :-)  Since we're in "the lesser of the evils" mode, I agree
> it would be helpful to work through the devilish details.
>
> > Is this the decision, Randy and Martin? Or should we waffle
> along a bit longer?
>
> Creating such a draft sounds good to me.  Martin, any insights?
>
> Randy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>
>
>
>




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[e-mail]
https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru