Re: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

Just FYI, tomorrow morning (9 am Pacific) call can be accessed:

Dial-In #: +1.888.371.8922

International Dial-In #: +1.617.224.4792

Participant Passcode: 58371972

Addison

Mark Davis wrote:
> 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 
> <mailto:randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>> wrote:
> 
>     Hi -
> 
>     As co-chair...
> 
>      > From: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@roadrunner.com
>     <mailto:dewell@roadrunner.com>>
>      > To: "LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org <mailto: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 <mailto:Ltru@ietf.org>
>     https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- 
> Mark
> 
> 
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru@ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru