RE: [Ltru] Process

Mark wrote wrt:

> We clearly need some more process in the spec -- I didn't realize, for
example, that the armenian tags were added.

I am not sure that I saw the registration forms being submitted for
inclusion into the Registry... 

> 3.2. Language Subtag Review Board

In essence, I very much like it, although I have not yet looked at the
detailed wording.  However, I would propose the following change from:

----
> Any instance where the LSB does not follow the procedures in this 

> document are grounds for dismissal by the IESG.

-----

To 

-----

Any instance where the LSB does not follow the procedures in this document
MAY be considered as grounds for dismissal by the IESG.

----

I think we need to allow for human error.  A simple human error which can be
corrected should not be grounds for dismissal unless it is truly considered
to be negligence on the part of the LSRB.

In response to Doug where he wrote:

> I would like to see some provision for limited extension of these 30-day
and 15-day limits, in case one or more of the Reviewers is absent or
unavailable, 

> preventing the two-thirds majority vote. I can easily imagine a problem
arising if a request is filed in early to mid-December.

One Reviewer can be unavailable. You would still have a majority vote; thus
only two Reviewers are ever required to action changes. However, there could
be a situation where two (or even 3) Reviewers were unavailable (unlikely I
know) but maybe some wording to say that the LSRB can advise the list of a
time extension where deemed necessary. Necessary can be defined as being
where two or more Reviewers are absent.

On another note, to protect the Registry from requests that may be made by
people with "ulterior motives" I also think it might be appropriate to state
that  x number (for instance 5) of people need to show support for additions
to the Registry that do not form part of the underlying ISO/UN standards.
But I am not completely hung up on this; although it could also encourage
people to comment more often which can only be good.

Best regards

Debbie Garside

  _____  

From: Mark Davis [mailto:mark.davis@icu-project.org] 
Sent: 25 September 2006 16:50
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: [Ltru] Process

We clearly need some more process in the spec -- I didn't realize, for
example, that the armenian tags were added.

Here is a very rough draft revision of 3.2/3.3, incorporating some ideas
that we've discussed at various times. 

3.2. Language Subtag Review Board

The Language Subtag Board (LSB) consists of three Language Subtag Reviewers.
Each of the Language Subtag Reviewers.must read and thoroughly understand
all parts of BCP 47. All decisions of the LSB are by a majority vote. The
Language Subtag Board is appointed by the IESG for an indefinite term,
subject to removal or replacement at the IESG's discretion. Any instance
where the LSB does not follow the procedures in this document are grounds
for dismissal by the IESG.

The Language Subtag Board moderates the ietf-languages mailing list,
responds to requests for registration, and performs the other registry
maintenance duties described in Section
<http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.html#maintreg>
3.3 (Maintenance of the Registry ). Only the Language Subtag Board is
permitted to request IANA to change, update or add records to the Language
Subtag Registry.

The performance or decisions of the Language Subtag Board MAY be appealed to
the IESG under the same rules as other IETF decisions (see [RFC2026]
<http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.html#RFC2026>
(Bradner, S., "The Internet Standards Process -- Revision 3," October 1996.
)). The IESG can reverse or overturn the decision of the Language Subtag
Board, provide guidance, or take other appropriate actions. Because of the
need for stability, however, once a change is posted to
http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry, it is irrevocable.

3.3. Maintenance of the Registry

Maintenance of the registry requires that as codes are assigned or withdrawn
by ISO 639, ISO 15924, ISO 3166, and UN M.49, the Language Subtag Board MUST
evaluate each change, determine whether it conflicts with existing registry
entries, and within 30 days propose a change to the registry as described in
Section 3.5. 

The Language Subtag Board MUST ensure that all new subtags meet the
requirements in Section
<http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.html#choice>
4.1 (Choice of Language Tag) or submit an appropriate alternate subtag as
described in that section. The Language Subtag Board MUST respond within 15
days to any language subtag request form. The response MUST go both to the
submitter, and to the Language Tag Registry Mailing List. The response MUST
indicate whether the request is accepted, or not accepted. If it is not
accepted, the Language Subtag Board MUST indicate which clauses of BCP 47
would be violated by acceptance, and which changes to the language subtag
request form would make it acceptable. 

Upon acceptance, the Language Subtag Board MUST incorporate corresponding
changes into a public Draft Language Tag Registry, having precisely the same
syntax as http://www.iana.org/assignments/language-subtag-registry, and
notify the Language Tag Registry Mailing List. During a 15-day review
period, people have the opportunity to review the syntax of the change, and
the Language Subtag Board may make changes in response to feedback. Any such
change starts the 15-day review period anew. Once the review period has
completed, the LSB will change the File-Date and forward the entire file to
IANA for posting within 7 days. Once IANA has posted the file, IANA MUST
send a message will be sent to the Language Tag Registry Mailing List
acknowledging that. 

[Move the following to a section on the form]

If a record represents a new subtag that does not currently exist in the
registry, then the message's subject line MUST include the word "INSERT". If
the record represents a change to an existing subtag, then the subject line
of the message MUST include the word "MODIFY". The message MUST contain both
the record for the subtag being inserted or modified and the new File-Date
record. Here is an example of what the body of the message might contain:

The set of redundant and grandfathered tags is permanent and stable: new
entries in this section MUST NOT be added and existing entries MUST NOT be
removed. Records of type 'grandfathered' MAY have their type converted to
'redundant': see item 12 in Section
<http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.html#possibleReg
>  3.6 (Possibilities for Registration ) for more information. The decision
making process about which tags were initially grandfathered and which were
made redundant is described in [initial-registry]
<http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.html#initial-reg
istry>  ( Ewell, D., Ed., "Initial Language Subtag Registry," June 2005.).

Whenever an entry is created or modified in the registry, the 'File-Date'
record at the start of the registry is updated to reflect the most recent
modification date in the [RFC3339]
<http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.html#RFC3339>
(Klyne, G. and C. Newman, "Date and Time on the Internet: Timestamps," July
2002. ) "full-date" format. 

Before forwarding a new registration to IANA, the Language Subtag Reviewer
MUST ensure that values in the 'Subtag' field match case according to the
description in Section
<http://www.inter-locale.com/ID/draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.html#ianaformat>
3.1 (Format of the IANA Language Subtag Registry ). 