Subject: [Ltru] Consensus

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 3 Oct 2006 23:02:18 -0700

Randy and Martin,

So far two members have agreed with my proposal to get rid of the 
vacuous "replaced by ISO code xxx" comments in the RFC 4646bis Registry. 
While two is hardly a majority of the WG membership, it makes me wonder 
what mechanism is going to be used to gauge consensus.

So far I haven't seen any pronouncements of rough consensus from either 
co-chair, on either draft, and since we aren't using an issue tracker 
this time I really don't know if issues like this are even being 
recorded.

I'm starting to prepare draft-4645bis-01 based on John Cowan's suggested 
changes, and I'd like to know what to do about these comments.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 15:11:02 +0200

> vacuous "replaced by ISO code xxx" comments in the RFC 4646bis Registry.

Two = John and Mark.  Add me, these comments aren't very interesting,
and in the cases where grandfathered or redundant tags were replaced
by extlangs as in...

%%
Type: redundant
Tag: sgn-ZA
Description: South African Sign Language
Added: 2001-11-11
Preferred-Value: sgn-sfs
Deprecated: 2007-01-01
Comments: replaced by ISO code sfs
%%

...it's almost confusing, because sgn-ZA was replaced by sgn-sfs, not
only sfs.

> While two is hardly a majority of the WG membership, it makes me
> wonder what mechanism is going to be used to gauge consensus.

My personal view:  We're not "voting" unless a Co-chair decides that
a poll or "hum" is a good idea.  If you propose something, and all
you get is one or more "+1" and no objection, then it's apparently
fine for "us".  Or they say later that they don't like it.  In other
words just do it, it's only a draft, we can discuss and change it if
we don't like the outcome.  Apparently "we" (= some including you)
don't like these redundant comments, get rid of them.

> I really don't know if issues like this are even being recorded.

Just record it in a document history appendix, to be removed in the
final RFC.  We're not obliged to bother Martin or Randy with _all_
non-controversial nits.  You owe me two cents... :-)

Frank

---

From: "Kent Karlsson" <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 5 Oct 2006 20:06:00 +0200

+1

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Thu, 05 Oct 2006 11:29:33 -0700

+1

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 16 Oct 2006 10:21:51 -0700

You can add my voice in favour of that particular suggestion ("get rid of vacuous...").

Peter

-----Original Message-----
From: Doug Ewell [mailto:[email-masked]] 
Sent: Tuesday, October 03, 2006 11:02 PM
To: LTRU Working Group
Subject: [Ltru] Consensus

Randy and Martin,