Re: [Ltru] [everson@evertype.com: The Language Subtag Reviewer]

John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org> Wed, 14 March 2007 07:41 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 1HRO6Y-00064u-Ja; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:41:02 -0400
Received: from [10.91.34.44] (helo=ietf-mx.ietf.org) by megatron.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRO6X-00064Z-PA for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:41:01 -0400
Received: from earth.ccil.org ([192.190.237.11]) by ietf-mx.ietf.org with esmtp (Exim 4.43) id 1HRO5t-0004zL-7i for ltru@ietf.org; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:40:22 -0400
Received: from cowan by earth.ccil.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from <cowan@ccil.org>) id 1HRO5t-0005fB-IY; Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:40:21 -0400
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 03:40:21 -0400
To: Peter Constable <petercon@microsoft.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] [everson@evertype.com: The Language Subtag Reviewer]
Message-ID: <20070314074021.GE1509@mercury.ccil.org>
References: <20070306163127.GD30618@mercury.ccil.org> <6.0.0.20.2.20070313150924.07c51110@localhost> <20070314030214.GA32007@mercury.ccil.org> <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB8357955C70F7D854@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Content-Disposition: inline
In-Reply-To: <DDB6DE6E9D27DD478AE6D1BBBB8357955C70F7D854@NA-EXMSG-C117.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.13 (2006-08-11)
From: John Cowan <cowan@ccil.org>
X-Spam-Score: 0.0 (/)
X-Scan-Signature: ffa9dfbbe7cc58b3fa6b8ae3e57b0aa3
Cc: "ltru@ietf.org" <ltru@ietf.org>
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

Peter Constable scripsit:

> Well, that appears to me to be a different understanding than I have
> gotten reading RFCs from 1766 on through 4646: it has always been my
> impression that the decision process was one of rough consensus (not
> necessarily unanimous, as happens in ISO and other SDOs), and that
> the role of the Reviewer was to monitor the discussion and evaluate
> whether consensus had been reached after the two-week period was up.

As far as new subtag reservations are concerned, the LSR is free to
reject any proposal against which significant objections have been made,
*including his own*, provided the objections have been raised publicly
on the list.  Obviously the LSR is the judge of what is and what is not
a significant objection.  This process makes no mention of consensus.

For updates, the procedure is said to be the same, except that the LSR
decides whether there is consensus, and allows the update if there is.
It is not explicitly said what the LSR does in the absence of consensus
or if there is consensus to make no change.

-- 
No,  John.  I want formats that are actually       John Cowan
useful, rather than over-featured megaliths that   http://www.ccil.org/~cowan
address all questions by piling on ridiculous      cowan@ccil.org
internal links in forms which are hideously
over-complex. --Simon St. Laurent on xml-dev

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