Re: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

First off, I agree with Andy that the editor's contributions should be
judged on technical merit, just like everyone else's.

As far as a conclusion goes. Any judgment of consensus at this point is
premature. We are increasing the size of the registry by a huge margin, and
considering whether to add a significant piece of architecture: it is more
important that this revision be correctly designed than that it meet some
arbitrary deadline. I think that the telecons have been valuable for
bringing out the issues, and we already planned for another this week. As
long as we are making progress with that, we should continue. It is useful
when the chairs could make that meeting: Randy's been to one of them.
Martin, is that time too difficult for you?

Mark

On 10/9/07, Randy Presuhn <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com> wrote:
>
> Hi -
>
> As co-chair...
>
> > From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@roadrunner.com>
> > To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Tuesday, October 09, 2007 6:45 AM
> > Subject: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags
> >
> > Randy Presuhn <randy underscore presuhn at mindspring dot com> wrote:
> >
> > >> Hard to say.  I think at this moment there are more contributors who
> > >> favor (1) than (2), but the two main proponents of (2) are the
> > >> co-editors of 4646bis, which does tip the balance a bit.
> > >
> > > No, it does not.  Editors do the bidding of the WG, see RFC 2418
> > > clause 6.3.  As such they are *not* given special consideration in the
> > > determination of working group consensus.
> >
> > But they might well be given special consideration by other list members
> > who haven't made up their minds yet.
>
> This would be a bad thing.  RFC 2418 is abundantly clear that document
> editors do not enjoy any special privileges in determining WG consensus.
> Sometimes editors happen to be experts in the topic, sometimes they are
> not.
> But if a WG starts giving their voices more weight merely because they
> happen to be editors, something is seriously wrong.
>
> >  I would guess that with the small
> > number of people solidly on one side or the other, the battle for the
> > "undecided" bloc will be important.
>
> Perhaps, though the undecided have little import for a determination
> of rough consensus.  At some point Martin and I will have to make
> a determination of consensus.  It's clear that none of the options
> will make everyone happy.  It's possible that none of the options
> will make anyone happy in the long run.  Since there has been so little
> in the way of new information or arguments in this discussion,
> I think Martin and I will just have to pick one, based on the opinions
> expressed on this list so far, since few new voices seem to be joining
> in to express a preference.
>
> Randy
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
>

-- 
Mark