Subject: Re: STD (was: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:43:32 -0700

r&d afrac <rd at afrac dot org> wrote:

> - I supported the proposition of an African searcher (they treated of
> troll) to reconcile the desire of a strict ABNF expressed by the WG
> affinity group and the users, R&D and innovation (following ISO
> evolution) support to use the URI-tags RFC in proposing first to use
> the "private use" area. As indicated, a remark shown me it was a
> wrong choice, the private use area also addressing other needs.

Merriam-Webster OnLine defines "affinity group" as "a group of people
having a common interest or goal or acting together for a specific
purpose (as for a chartered tour)."

Exercise for the reader:  Explain why this is a bad thing for an IETF
Working Group.

--
Doug Ewell
Fullerton, California
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ietf mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 09:07:45 +0200

>Exercise for the reader:  Explain why this is a bad thing for an IETF

Slowly, the good questions are asked. May be can I suggest to read:

"RFC 3774 2.2.6: Members of this affinity group tend to talk more 
freely to each other and former members of the affinity group - this 
may be because the affinity group has also come to share a cultural 
outlook which matches the dominant cultural ethos of the IETF (North 
American,  English speaking).  Newcomers to the organization and 
others outside the affinity group are reluctant to challenge the 
apparent authority of the extended affinity group during debates and 
consequently influence remains concentrated in a relatively small 
group of people.

This reluctance may also be exacerbated if participants come from a 
different cultural background than the dominant one."

Obviously I am not much impressed by such "apparent authority" 
....  But the affinity group can use its number of to make believe 
and organise consensus by exhaustion:

"RFC 3774 2.7: On the other hand, the decision making process must 
allow discussions to be re-opened if significant new information 
comes to light or additional experience is gained which appears to 
justify alternative conclusions for a closed issue. One cause that 
can lead to legitimate attempts to re-open an apparently closed issue 
is the occurrence of 'consensus by exhaustion'. "

Take care.
jfc

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 07:57:35 -0700

> consequently influence remains concentrated in a relatively small

Quick show of hands:  How many people think M. Morfin has been hampered
by a reluctance to challenge the rest of the Working Group?

> different cultural background than the dominant one."

Which of your objections to the draft are based on your French-speaking,
French-national cultural affiliation, such that they would not be
adequately understood by North Americans or English speakers?

Not everything is discrimination.  Consider the possibility that the
objections to your proposals have a technical basis, rather than being
ad-hominem.

---

From: Stephane Bortzmeyer <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 17:16:05 +0200

On Mon, Aug 29, 2005 at 07:57:35AM -0700,
 Doug Ewell <[email-masked]> wrote 

> by a reluctance to challenge the rest of the Working Group?
...
> French-national cultural affiliation, 

I can testify that Jefsey Morfin is exactly as verbose and unparsable
when he writes in French. His postings in my main language are (like
he does in english) very long and full of pseudo-technical babbling.

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 18:27:11 +0200

Stephane Bortzmeyer wrote:

> I can testify that Jefsey Morfin is exactly as verbose and
> unparsable when he writes in French. His postings in my main
> language are (like he does in english) very long and full of
> pseudo-technical babbling.

Thanks for info.  The techno babble was very confusing, mixing
the tag URI scheme with language tags (unrelated), throwing in
IDNA (unrelated), comparing language tags with DNS (unrelated),
spicing this with IAB / UN / ITU / W3C / ISO / ... (pick all)
periodically, it was difficult to identify some real concerns
in this mess.  Where it was possible, e.g. registry size, the
WG discussed it.  Where this was impossible, e.g. assumptions
that the registry is just another root zone or hosts.txt, or
even something like AV signatures, the WG "skipped" it.

The WG also refrained from contacting the UN general assembly
and other stunts.  BTW, please watch your Cc: in cases like
this, somebody (guess) will always try to add iesg@iesg.  Bye

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 30 Aug 2005 11:21:51 +0200

Gentlemen,

Whatever one may or may not think of Jefsey's logic, please
confine yourselves to discussing his logic and not the man
himself.

Thanks

     Brian