[Ltru] Teleconference

Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com> Wed, 10 October 2007 18:54 UTC

Return-path: <ltru-bounces@ietf.org>
Received: from [127.0.0.1] (helo=stiedprmman1.va.neustar.com) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfghZ-0001Jf-Cc; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:54:37 -0400
Received: from ltru by megatron.ietf.org with local (Exim 4.43) id 1IfghY-0001FI-Jj for ltru-confirm+ok@megatron.ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:54:36 -0400
Received: from [10.90.34.44] (helo=chiedprmail1.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfghY-0001Em-8C for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:54:36 -0400
Received: from smtp.microsoft.com ([131.107.115.214]) by chiedprmail1.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1IfghX-0006tn-HL for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 14:54:36 -0400
Received: from tk5-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com (157.54.70.185) by TK5-EXGWY-E803.partners.extranet.microsoft.com (10.251.56.169) with Microsoft SMTP Server (TLS) id 8.1.177.2; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:54:34 -0700
Received: from NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.62.39]) by tk5-exhub-c104.redmond.corp.microsoft.com ([157.54.70.185]) with mapi; Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:54:33 -0700
From: Shawn Steele <Shawn.Steele@microsoft.com>
To: "Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com" <Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com>, Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
Date: Wed, 10 Oct 2007 11:54:31 -0700
Thread-Topic: Teleconference
Thread-Index: AcgLZ1EZSV9qLqDQQSCWs9B/h1qpRgAB5bTA
Message-ID: <C9BF0238EED3634BA1866AEF14C7A9E55A5988040D@NA-EXMSG-C116.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
References: <470C4339.90901@yahoo-inc.com> <OF535F5D42.93F6883E-ON88257370.00625717-88257370.0062AC62@spe.sony.com>
In-Reply-To: <OF535F5D42.93F6883E-ON88257370.00625717-88257370.0062AC62@spe.sony.com>
Accept-Language: en-US
Content-Language: en-US
X-MS-Has-Attach:
X-MS-TNEF-Correlator:
acceptlanguage: en-US
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
MIME-Version: 1.0
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: e472ca43d56132790a46d9eefd95f0a5
Cc: LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject: [Ltru] Teleconference
X-BeenThere: ltru@ietf.org
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.5
Precedence: list
List-Id: Language Tag Registry Update working group discussion list <ltru.ietf.org>
List-Unsubscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=unsubscribe>
List-Archive: <http://www1.ietf.org/pipermail/ltru>
List-Post: <mailto:ltru@ietf.org>
List-Help: <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=help>
List-Subscribe: <https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru>, <mailto:ltru-request@ietf.org?subject=subscribe>
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

And a warning before then'd be nice too :)

Is there a plan for another teleconference?

- Shawn

-----Original Message-----
From: Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com [mailto:Karen_Broome@spe.sony.com]
Sent: Wednesday, October 10, 2007 10:55 AM
To: Addison Phillips
Cc: LTRU Working Group
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Extended language tags

This e-mail went out too late for me to participate. Please try to send
notice before the close of business the day before the call.

Karen Broome




Addison Phillips <addison@yahoo-inc.com>
10/09/2007 08:12 PM

To
Mark Davis <mark.davis@icu-project.org>
cc
LTRU Working Group <ltru@ietf.org>
Subject
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






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


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