Subject: [Ltru] Re: Punjabi

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:33:36 -0700

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> As things now stand, it would be lah-pnb-PK; of course, the 639 RA may 
> change things around.

If they do, I sure hope it's before we finalize our work.  Maybe there 
is a good reason for all this delay, after all.

--
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: Peter Constable <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:36:25 -0700

I told you a while ago that this process should wait on these open issues to be resolved. Unfortunately, the JAC has been much slower in acting on them than I had expected. (Sometimes, I've been the bottleneck, but not always.)

Peter

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2007 23:45:06 -0700

Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft dot com> wrote:

> That's why I have always found it especially annoying when the 
> Reviewer rejected a request for something like es-americas that 
> everybody else was arguing was legitimate -- it seemed like the 
> Reviewer was making a unilateral decision, which I perceived to be 
> contrary to the intent of the RFC.

In that isolated instance, of course, I'm glad "es-americas" was 
rejected, since we now have "419" which solves the same problem in a 
much more systematic way.

---

From: Addison Phillips <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 14 Mar 2007 09:08:44 -0700

The question before us is not Michael's performance, but what or whether 
to change anything about the Reviewer role in 4646bis. I think reviewing 
Michael's personal performance in the role is troublesome, since it 
verges on personal attack. After considerable thought, I think I have 
reached my own decision on how I think we should proceed:

1. I think we should not change anything at all about the Reviewer role 
in the current draft, with one exception (below). I think we made the 
right "design decisions". If the "implementation" is inappropriate, we 
should each, as individuals, take appropriate actions to improve it. For 
my own part this has included monitoring the ietf-languages list to see 
that the provisions of 4646 are generally followed and attempting to 
help registrants with their applications.

Note: we included specific text in the current draft dealing with 
delegation of listmom and so forth. Official roles with separate 
appointments are not necessary. Why burden the IESG with them?

2. I think we should include in the provisions for the IESG's selection 
of the reviewer a comment period on the appointment similar to other 
selections in the IETF. If some feel that the reviewer selected is or is 
not appropriate, they should have an opportunity to provide feedback to 
the IESG other than the appeals process at that time. Excepting appeals 
to the IESG, that would be the appropriate time and forum in which to 
critique the current Reviewer's performance.

Addison

-- 
Addison Phillips
Globalization Architect -- Yahoo! Inc.
Chair -- W3C Internationalization Core WG

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.