Re: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

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