Re: [precis] [Idna-update] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues

"Pete Resnick" <> Tue, 04 December 2018 23:54 UTC

Return-Path: <>
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 04D80130EB5; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:54:37 -0800 (PST)
X-Virus-Scanned: amavisd-new at
X-Spam-Flag: NO
X-Spam-Score: -1.898
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-1.898 tagged_above=-999 required=5 tests=[BAYES_00=-1.9, HTML_MESSAGE=0.001, URIBL_BLOCKED=0.001] autolearn=ham autolearn_force=no
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id Et9TGWQDUVBu; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id 42CD4130DCA; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 15:54:35 -0800 (PST)
Received: from localhost (localhost []) by (Postfix) with ESMTP id B2F476F63815; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:54:31 -0600 (CST)
Received: from ([]) by localhost ( []) (amavisd-new, port 10024) with ESMTP id NgUEOetAFoFo; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:54:30 -0600 (CST)
Received: from [] ( []) by (Postfix) with ESMTPSA id 1D4266F6380A; Tue, 4 Dec 2018 17:54:30 -0600 (CST)
From: "Pete Resnick" <>
To: "Ted Hardie" <>
Cc: "Ben Campbell" <>, "John C Klensin" <>,,,,
Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 17:54:29 -0600
X-Mailer: MailMate (1.12.2r5568)
Message-ID: <>
In-Reply-To: <>
References: <3079F05172A384D8987A2338@PSB> <> <> <> <> <>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="=_MailMate_1E74A519-BCED-4CDD-A757-E489F427815B_="
Archived-At: <>
Subject: Re: [precis] [Idna-update] [I18n-discuss] draft-faltstrom-unicode11, i18n "directorate", and related issues
X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.29
Precedence: list
List-Id: Preparation and Comparison of Internationalized Strings <>
List-Unsubscribe: <>, <>
List-Archive: <>
List-Post: <>
List-Help: <>
List-Subscribe: <>, <>
X-List-Received-Date: Tue, 04 Dec 2018 23:54:37 -0000

Trimming a bit:

On 4 Dec 2018, at 17:37, Ted Hardie wrote:

> Howdy Pete,
> Please re-read John's message, which includes this:
> "its mission was
> to advise, inform, and perhaps even educate the community on
> i18n issues, rather than merely advising the ART ADs and/or
> designating people to perform reviews late in the Last Call
> cycle. "
> As I have said multiple times, I have no problem with an AD requesting 
> a
> review of a specific individual or set of individuals.  But John's 
> message
> is highlighting that this group is meant to be something different 
> than the
> usual directorate.

Certainly to some small extent all of the directorates "advise, inform, 
and perhaps even educate the community", as each is willing to do early 
reviews, and some of the advisory groups (like the assorted "Doctors") 
will help a WG when directly solicited by the WG. The fact that those 
duties get a more formal mention in the mission of the i18n directorate 
doesn't give me pause. But what I was responding to was this part of 
your earlier message:

>> On 4 Dec 2018, at 16:02, Ted Hardie wrote:
>>> ...I inferred that the intent was to set up a group with an
>>> independent authority to foster work or block documents.

Like Ben, I see nothing in John's words (or any of the discussions of 
the directorate) that indicate any power to "block documents", let alone 
some other sort of special "independent authority" (beyond what we 
already have experience with). And that seems the real basis for your 
objection. I think perhaps you're tilting at a windmill.

> That concerns me, especially if it is meant to have a
> review power beyond "advising the ART ADs", which is what (ART)
> directorates do.  Soliciting and receiving that advice is the state 
> you're
> pointing to, and but John has asserted this is not that.

John has asserted that it is not *only* that. But the only thing that it 
appears to be beyond that is a group that can, as John said, "advise, 
inform, and perhaps even educate the community".

> Given that
> assertion, I think the community ought to know and have a voice in 
> what it
> is instead.

If it had any additional authority, I would agree. It does not appear 
to, and therefore I do not.

> I also am disappointed that the ART ADs did not simply ask the 
> relevant
> questions of the people that they would or will put on the 
> Directorate, if
> they are seeking the usual sort of advice.  There is no power in the 
> advice
> coming from a directorate rather than Individual 1 or 2. But that is a
> timing question, not a process point.

There is no power, but often there is more organization. That seems like 
a legitimate reason for the pause.


Pete Resnick
All connections to the world are tenuous at best