Subject: RE: [Ltru] Language Subtag Reviewer Appointment

From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 13:13:54 +0000

Scott,

Please tell us whether this is an option:

4. Leave the document alone and appoint a reviewer who is willing 
to carry out the list admin duties and to delegate the language 
tag review duties.

Misha

To find out more about Reuters visit www.about.reuters.com

Any views expressed in this message are those of the individual sender, except where the sender specifically states them to be the views of Reuters Ltd.

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 15:27:39 +0100

Misha Wolf wrote:

> 4. Leave the document alone and appoint a reviewer who is
> willing to carry out the list admin duties and to delegate
> the language tag review duties.

The review list has two "official" interfaces:  (a) IANA -
telling them what to do in the registry, (b) IESG - for the
appeal / appoint / recall cases.  The IAB comes only into
play if there's a (wannabe) serious problem with (a) or (b).

Scott's option 2 is essentially "let the LSR (e.g. Michael)
delegate the moderation job to the list owner (e.g. Harald).

Your option 4 is the same idea with reverted roles.  So if
e.g. Harald could convince IANA that "Subject: I approve"
posted by Michael is okay, it should work.  It could also
work if he posts "really" or "make it so" in reply to such
approvals.  Or if he maintains an unofficial registry copied
by IANA whenever it changes.  Or if he gets ftp write access
on IANA's server for the directory with the subtag registry.

This all depends on technical arrangements between IANA, LSR,
and the list owner.  From an "official" POV there's only one
responsible person.  Same idea as with the "proto-shepherd",
that's internal business between IESG and WG Chairs, and the
official "shepherd" is the relevant AD.

                           Bye, Frank

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 08:25:16 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Misha Wolf [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 8:14 AM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck; LTRU Working Group
> Cc: Michael Everson
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] Language Subtag Reviewer Appointment
> 
> Scott,
> 

No, I don't think so.  The most important part of the reviewer's job is the
review process, so I don't think that part of the job can be delegated.

-Scott-

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:49:18 +0100

>to carry out the list admin duties and to delegate the language

Dear Misha,
This is not what our consensus says. My rigidity here is for at least 
three good reasons, considering that the language 
subtags/tag-extensions registry are of considerable economical, 
political, technical and societal importance.

1. we need someone able to cope with a perpetual technical opposition 
without pretending it is personal. This will most porbably not be RFC 
3066 like. But worse than what I known during the last 14 months, but 
with organisations. You cannot suspend Universities, Govs etc. for 
being "off-topic" because you technically disagree with them.

2. if we start with a patch, we will never know where it ends. RFC 
3066 Bis puts the IETF in language denomination leadership. It has 
responsibility and competence requirements (RFC 3935) to fullfil. We 
cannot have the IESG coming back to us as Scott must do today, 
everytime there is one of the RFC 3066 Bis flaw exposed. The RFC 3066 
is not perfect. We change it or we apply it. Or this is confusion.

3. the very nature of the job is relations and then subtag reviewing. 
There will be many controverted debates, etc. Someone unique MUST be 
at the tiller and equal with his peers in other SSDOs. The job 
decides for the IETF (RFC 3935), it cannot be delegated to not IESG 
approved committed persons.

jfc