Subject: [Ltru] Re: Last Call: 'Tags for Identifying Languages' to BCP

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 28 Aug 2005 22:30:20 -0700

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

>> other mayhem witnessed on this list is absolutely typical of
>> other IETF Working Groups.
>
> You started with a statement that you can't judge it, now you
> say it's absolutely typical (?)

I was afraid that big, long sentence might be misconstrued.  What I
wrote was:

"For all I know, the sheer volume of... [blah blah blah] ... is
absolutely typical of other IETF Working Groups."

The operative phrase is "for all I know."  I have only this one group to
go by.

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

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:23:25 +0200

Doug Ewell wrote:
 
> "For all I know, the sheer volume of... [blah blah blah] ...
> is absolutely typical of other IETF Working Groups."

Oh, yes, that's possible.  Apparently the LTRU list was
more on the busy side, other lists like SASL or NETWRK are
relatively quiet.  But when I substract what I consider as
"Jefsey tries to collect points for his appeal" (and Randy
is forced to track this with the ticket system) it's not
too bad from my POV.

In another article:

| It's hard to follow this line of argument that a registry
| with 7,600 languages would be too large, and simultaneously
| that it should instead support 20,000 languages, unles the
| object is to do away with the registry altogether

It's exactly the same line of arguments where he attacks the
registry for its size, and simultaneously proposes to add
descriptions in - hard to tell - "more" languages.

Some supported the latter, and they were not worried about
the size.  A majority decided that French descriptions are
not really better than English names, and that we're not
creating a dictionary.  Both are honest positions.

But one participant wanted both, that was IMNSHO dishonest,
and just another attempt to collect points for his appeal.

                         Bye, Frank

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 19:49:02 +0200

>is forced to track this with the ticket system) it's not

Dear Frank,
you should add the private mails I received which amount in my 
dedicated mailbox to nearly 500 (but there are duplicates, side 
aspects, etc. in more and in less). Some are from Members of this WG.

>| object is to do away with the registry altogether

Your comment is very interesting as it implies positions I have not, 
and is insultring, on the ground of an obvious typo I appologized 
for. Some could say that you could be biased :-)

"Be happy when you are gratuitly insulted, either you are stupid or right".
take care.
jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 29 Aug 2005 21:46:03 +0200

r&d afrac wrote:

> you should add the private mails I received which amount in
> my dedicated mailbox to nearly 500

Now I certainly have no idea what happens in your inbox.  You
sent some (about 6 ?) private mails to me, and I responded how
often, twice ?  Nothing special / unusual, I also had some off
topic conversations with John, and Debbie (but that wasn't off
topic and later also made it to the list).

>> In another article:
>
>| It's hard to follow this line of argument
[...]
 
> Your comment is very interesting

I quoted it because it is interesting, but actually it was
Doug's comment (in a parallel article), and I marked it with
a vertical bar (indicating quotes from sources outside of
the actual thread, i.e. "> text" isn't the same as "| text")

> Some could say that you could be biased :-)

Yes, they're free to say what they like.  OTOH I can prove
that you attacked the draft from opposite directions, you
were concerned about the registry size _and_ you wanted to
make it even bigger by adding more descriptions.

IIRC all others picked at most one of these positions.  Bye