Re: [Ltru] ISO 639-6 and LTRU continuation [was: Geocoordinates]

[Martin Duerst <[e-mail]>]

At 05:30 09/03/11, Phillips, Addison wrote:

>But I speculate recklessly. Since it seems pretty easy to create an IETF 
>WG,

It is pretty easy if the proposed WG meets the relevant criteria,
such as relevance to the Internet, critical mass,...

>I guess the real question is whether the chairs, AD, and such would 
>want to maintain a moribund group for a year or so while this standard 
>bakes instead of just creating a new one at the appropriate juncture.

It is very clear that the IETF prefers groups to be shut down
when there's nothing much to do, not excluding the potential
to form a new group again when there is new work to be done.

In the mean time, the custom at the IETF is to keep the mailing
list open, but a mailing list and a WG aren't the same.


>Or it 639-6 that close?

My preference would be to wait for it to be a full ISO standard,
and in the mean time to collect experience with the actual use
of 4646bis.

Regards,    Martin.



#-#-#  Martin J. Du"rst, Assoc. Professor, Aoyama Gakuin University
#-#-#  http://www.sw.it.aoyama.ac.jp       mailto:[e-mail]