Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: Language Tag Reviewer

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 12:34:48 -0800

John Cowan <cowan at ccil dot org> wrote:

> For example, Doug Ewell has taken it upon himself (at least for the
> time being) to monitor the underlying ISO lists and feed their
> contents to the LSR.  In that sense, then, the LSR has delegated this
> responsibility to him.  However, if Doug (or some virtual Doug)
> dropped the ball, the LSR would need to see to it that someone took it
> over, whether himself or another.  If not, the IESG could take
> corrective action.

That's pretty much the idea, although in this case it's more of a 
behind-the-scenes sort of delegation.  I plan to feed pre-digested 
registration forms to the LSR and advise him on whether they conflict 
with anything, but not actually submit them to IANA myself.

The delegation of list moderator duties would be more overt; Harald 
would actually be the de facto list moderator, not just someone who 
advises Michael on how to moderate it.

If IETF and IESG representatives say that the LSR can delegate some or 
all of his duties to another, while remaining "responsible" for them, I 
see no reason why we should dispute that.

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

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

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 01:04:19 +0100

Dear Doug and John,
Let face it, the approach you describe (absolutely no offense 
intended) is an amateur approach which cannot work. Let face it, the 
experience of the [email-masked] was interesting, but 
it does not scale in the subtags and tag extsions areas.

- RFC 3066 [email-masked] was a private mailing list 
without any tool, procedure, etc. with a language expert (Language 
Tag  Reviewer) who registered 72 language-tags in 10 years. With a 
very low impact on text/content industry and no impact on 
e-commerce,  policy, Internet development. A focus on language 
analysis and discussion of 15 days and one decision every month an a half.

- RFC 3066 Bis [email-masked] is to help supporting two 
complex registries with tens of thousands entries. With a direct 
impact on text, content industries, cultural policies, e-commerce, 
intelligence gathering and seach engines, high level legal 
implications all over the world. Most of all it puts the IETF in the 
langage denomination  leadership. There is no need to have expertise 
in languages, but there is a need to be an expert in many 
standardisation area, network architecture, content and marketing 
industries, economical intelligence, etc. with very high diplomatic 
skills. Or to be quickly replaced by others.

RFC 3066 was not really subject to RFC 3935. RFC 3066 Bis is. It 
imposes direct obligations of competences and responsibility in an 
area where the IETF has so far no intrinsic experience and expertise, 
and no crossexpertise. This is why the consensus was that the 
Language Subtags (and Tag Extensions) Reviewer be appointed by the 
IESG. This was a necessity I certainly did not object.

Due to the major economic impact, considering possible COIs is of 
major importance.

This is to underline this that I nominated myself. Also for others to 
dare nominating themselves or nominating experts they know. While the 
IESG planed to consider an appointment without calling for 
nominations! I want this to be clear: I assume that role for a open 
use project. I am discovering it for two years now. I can say that no 
one I know on earth has the necessary expertise to match the RFC 3066 
Bis expectation. This is because the RFC 3066 Bis wants to constrain 
and want to be excusive. This is because the job is at the core of 
the whole evolutions from datacommunications to extended services 
(content meaning support). I note that  those I could suggest have 
either a COI, or no interest in the IETF. So we have to seriously 
help the IESG in this endeavour.

IMHO this job calls for stability, resources, competences. We have 
two possibilities:

- either an individual. He must demonstrate experience and capacity 
to manage a large disputed registry. Certainly the first requirement 
(or call it a test) is for him to administer and moderate his mailing 
list (with people much much tougher, concerned and bigger than JFC!). 
How could he manage international contentions if he cannot tackle 
domestic disagreements. The size of the registry means that he may 
have to address large updates (let consider ISO 639-3) and to call on 
the expertise of many people (over dialects, variants, etc. and 
extsions). The simple daily mailing he will receive (request, 
information, political objections, relations with other bodies, etc.) 
and international meetings he will be expected to address will 
probably make his job full time.

- or a serious established entity. This could be Unicode, the Libray 
of Congress, UNESCO, a cultural foundation, a library association, a 
large existing NGO, Francophonie, Incoterms, a Governement, etc.  Let 
understand that if we want to address possible conflicts with ISO MAs 
we need to be level with them. This WG has definitly refused to 
consider the cost issues. So the IESG is either to find a voluntary 
candidate structure paying for the expenses, or a budget, or 
sponsors. This has to be perpetual, because the world is going 
progressively to rely on these registries. I frankly consider that 
the Language IANA registries the constrained and free way they are 
documented by RFC 3066 Bis call for two or three full time persons 
and serious processing capacities. This is first a job for the IASA 
to organise.

Any candidate should come with a documented policy, a project 
management system, a budget, a financing. Just let ask ourselves the 
time we spent on Doug's document, and the time he spent. This was 
nice, simple and smooth. And it was JFC. When opposition come from a 
Ministry, a large Library, a Consortium, you will suspend them?

Next he must come with a clear vision of the evolution. The IESG 
cannot engage into Language subtags and tag extentions registries 
management without considering the job and requirement evolution 
within one, two five years. The obligations and load borned from the 
IGF relation, competition and interoperability. The Language Subtags 
Reviewer must act as IESG advisor. His competence in ISO 11179 issues 
are to be serious. etc.

This is a serious issue. I suggest we take it seriously.
jfc

At 21:34 20/02/2006, Doug Ewell wrote:

>registration forms to the LSR and advise him on whether they 
>conflict with anything, but not actually submit them to IANA myself.
>
>If IETF and IESG representatives say that the LSR can delegate some 
>or all of his duties to another, while remaining "responsible" for 
>them, I see no reason why we should dispute that.
>
>--
>Doug Ewell