Subject: [Ltru] RE: Language Tag Reviewer

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 10:51:01 -0800 (PST)

(cc'ing the ltru list and the IESG since this concerns an approved LTRU
document)

> What is this crap? I mean it. I have put up with all sorts of
> nonsense on the IETF languages list for YEARS, and I have repeatedly
> had to BEG people to take off-topic materials elsewhere. I have
> repeatedly made it clear that my interest in language-tag reviewing
> is limited to LANGUAGE-TAG REVIEWING. Who is now asking me to take an
> administrative role in running the discussion list?

It is part of the defined duties specified by draft-ietf-ltru-registry-14.txt:

3.2.  Language Subtag Reviewer

   The Language Subtag Reviewer is appointed by the IESG for an
   indefinite term, subject to removal or replacement at the IESG's
   discretion.  The Language Subtag Reviewer moderates the ietf-
                                             ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   languages mailing list, responds to requests for registration, and
   ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
   performs the other registry maintenance duties described in
   Section 3.3.  Only the Language Subtag Reviewer is permitted to
   request IANA to change, update or add records to the Language Subtag
   Registry.

Now, having pointed this out, I will also say that I think this is totally
inappropriate. IMO there is no reason why mailing list moderation duties should
be part of the language tag reviewer's job. The skillsets sure seem disjoint to
me and I see no advantage to be gained from requiring the same person do both.

I will also point out that although I'm the media types reviewer I'm not the
moderator of the media types review list, nor would I want to be. I also happen
to be the moderator of the charsets review list but I'm not on the review team,
and again I don't want to be. So there's ample "running code" to support the
notion of these being separate jobs.

I suspect this just slipped through in the LTRU registry specification without
anyone noticing it was problematic until now, but regardless of how it
happened, I hereby call for the text discussing the added list moderation
responsibility of the language tag reviewer to be struck from the registry
draft prior to its publication as an RFC. I don't especially care how this gets
done - AUTH48 edit, new draft, new last call, whatever, as long as it happens.

				Ned

P.S. I realize that with the IAB's recent (and IMO overly pedantic) ruling
regarding the handling of non-WG list, the IESG may well be wrapped around
an assortment of axles in regards to non-WG list moderation. Nevertheless,
I hope this can be corrected with a minimum of fuss and furor.

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

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 00:25:17 +0100

Ned Freed wrote:
 
> I suspect this just slipped through in the LTRU registry
> specification without anyone noticing it was problematic
> until now

It was added in draft -13, after the "IETF last call", see
also <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/3607>.

Apparently in response to the GenArt review, here it was
added:  <http://permalink.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru/3593>

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 19 Feb 2006 19:37:33 -0500

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Frank Ellermann [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Sunday, February 19, 2006 6:25 PM
> To: [email-masked]
> Cc: [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: Language Tag Reviewer
> 
> Ned Freed wrote:
>  
> specification 
> > without anyone noticing it was problematic until now
> 

I should note, as others have suggested, that this responsibility can be
delegated.  Like it is right now, for example.

-Scott-

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 03:52:14 +0100

At 19:51 19/02/2006, Ned Freed wrote:
>inappropriate.

Dear Michael and Ned,
Many things are inappropriate in RFC 3066 Bis. You may look at all 
the points I rose and the WG did not want to discuss. But I was 
mostly interested in reducing its possible harm to languages. The 
moderation of the mailing list is among them. I regreted you 
considered the WG-LTRU was a "list [] set up to deal with the noise 
generated by the revision of the RFC" (Michael June 13th). You would 
probably have prevented the current problem with more authority and concern.

RFC 3066 Bis Languages Subtags Reviewer is not the former RFC 3066 
Language Tags Reviewer. This is not only because we change 
registries, appointment authority, registry size, mailing list, 
international and technical exposure, etc. It is because we change 
the very considered matters and therefore the selection requirements.

The RFC 3066 Language Tag Reviewer has well taken care of the 
registration of 72 language tags in 10 years 5 (I genuinely thank you 
for that). The new Languages Subtags Reviewer is to take care of 
subtags. They are substantially different. They are no more pointers 
to a language (langtags), but of elements of various natures to be 
used to build that pointers. In a registry counting soon enough 
30.000 subtags, having necessarily to transition to ISO 11179 
compatibility to preserve interoperability.

The recent experience on the RFC 3066 list to consider "EU" as an RFC 
3066 Bis subtag for example lead to a fiasco. It was because the RFC 
3066 list's expertise is in languages. Like yours. It is not in ISO 
3166 tables, not in laws, not in politics, not in History, not in 
European Union affairs, not in inter-registry relations. It lead to 
deny registration right to the "EU" subtag, for the leading world 
market and political entity!!!

Yet an RFC 3066 Bis [email-masked] list must be created.
If the Reviewer is not its Administrator, he has to be appointed by the IESG.

>I hope this can be corrected with a minimum of fuss and furor.

In respecting the RFC 3066 Bis text once appeals and possible 
corrections have been finalised, in respecting the IETF common 
nomination and selection rules (obviously taking care of COIs with 
relations with other possibly registries with different technical and 
commercial interests),  I do not see who could object?

I asked the Chairs and AD (without acknowledgment so far), the 
correction of the "langtag registry" typo in the RFC 3066 Bis header. 
I suggest we add the correction of the 3.2 part. It should say the 
list administration will be provided by the IANA (seems better and 
less prone to "fuss and furor" for a iana.org list) and the Review 
provided by the IETF as per the current text. The IANA is part of 
ICANN and has a good appeal system with a neutral Ombudsman. I note 
that ICANN (as IANA) is a member of the ISO 3166 committee.

jfc

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:54:40 +0100

Mr Morfin, I have said this before: do not write to me for any reason.

Michael Everson.

At 03:52 +0100 2006-02-20, r&d afrac wrote:
>registration of 72 language tags in 10 years 5 (I genuinely thank 
>you for that). The new Languages Subtags Reviewer is to take care of 
>The recent experience on the RFC 3066 list to consider "EU" as an 
>RFC 3066 Bis subtag for example lead to a fiasco. It was because the 
>RFC 3066 list's expertise is in languages. Like yours. It is not in 
>ISO 3166 tables, not in laws, not in politics, not in History, not 
>in European Union affairs, not in inter-registry relations. It lead 
>to deny registration right to the "EU" subtag, for the leading world 
>relations with other possibly registries with different technical 
>and commercial interests),  I do not see who could object?
>
>correction of the "langtag registry" typo in the RFC 3066 Bis 
>header. I suggest we add the correction of the 3.2 part. It should 
>say the list administration will be provided by the IANA (seems 
>better and less prone to "fuss and furor" for a iana.org list) and 
>the Review provided by the IETF as per the current text. The IANA is 
>part of ICANN and has a good appeal system with a neutral Ombudsman. 
>I note that ICANN (as IANA) is a member of the ISO 3166 committee.
>
>jfc

---

From: Ned Freed <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 06:48:22 -0800 (PST)

> It seems obvious to me that the language tag reviewer, like anyone
> else in a position of responsibility, can delegate part of his
> or her role, including this part.

I, OTOH, don't see this as obvious at all. Nothing in any designated
reviewer language I've ever seen says that after the IESG carefully
chooses an appropriate reviewer said reviewer is entitled to hand off any
of all of his duties to someone the IESG never considered or approved.

Let's please look past the people currently in the roles. I suspect that the
IESG would not be happy if duties were delegated to someone the IESG felt
wasn't up to the task.

But even if this were as obviously OK as you seem to think, the question
remains as to whether finding someone to modereate a list should be
part of a reviewer's job. Again, let's look past the current situation
where we already have a competent reviewer and list admin in place.

				Ned

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 15:18:12 +0100

>Mr Morfin, I have said this before: do not write to me for any reason.

Verry easy. Make sure I never receive a mail with you in the header.
jfc

---

From: John Cowan <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:59:12 -0500

> of all of his duties to someone the IESG never considered or approved.

This confuses execution with responsibility.  The LSR remains *responsible*
for the actions of anyone he delegates to, and if he delegates to an
incompetent list admin, or LSR-assistant of any other sort, then on
complaint to the IESG it could remove the LSR.

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.

-- 
As you read this, I don't want you to feel      John Cowan 
sorry for me, because, I believe everyone       [email-masked]
will die someday.                               http://www.ap.org
        --From a Nigerian-type scam spam        http://www.ccil.org/~cowan

---

From: "Addison Phillips" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 09:43:42 -0800

Michael,

It isn't clear to me that it is a mistake.

Granted: I wrote that text rather quickly in response to the "GenArt"
review, but not without some thought. 

I considered what I had observed of the role of the tag reviewer and what
powers it would be necessary to give that person in order to function. I
observe that, over the years, you have moderated the actual discussion of
language tags and that it is necessary that you be able to moderate the
discussion. The ability to say "this topic is closed" or remind people to
stay on-topic is list moderation and you have historically done that. 

You have not, on the other hand, administered the list itself. Harald has.
Witness the various suspensions of a certain poster's rights on the list:
these were all initiated by Harald acting as "listmom". I could have divided
the two in the text, but it seemed unnecessary at the time. LTRU gave the
LSR godlike powers on purpose and I think it entirely appropriate that the
LSR have at least some authority to moderate the discussion on the list
(hence: the text). Is there a problem with you sending Harald the note that
says: "please suspend this poster for 30 days" or with Harald sending the
note saying "on behalf of the LSR I am suspending..."? 

Except in recent history, I don't think it has ever been necessary to
suspend anyone before. Hopefully the requisite warning will be enough in the
future.

The question of your finding the next list administrator is moot. That is
not necessarily your responsibility: nowhere does it say that you appoint
them. This text merely gives you the authority to tell them what to do. If
we're going to do anything, we should add text directing the IESG to take up
that burden:

--
The IESG also appoints the list administrator or adminstrators for the
ietf-languages list (who MAY be the same person as the LSR). The list
administrator moderates the list under the rules and provisions set forth in
BCP 94 [RFC3934] and BCP 83 [RFC3683]. Decisions made by the list
administrator or LSR regarding posting rights MAY be appealed to the Area
Director designated by the IESG.
--

You'll note that this text attempts to address the recent suspensions appeal
mess by giving the list admin direct authority to apply 3934 and 3683 under
the terms recently described by the IESG.

Best Regards,

Addison

Addison Phillips
Internationalization Architect - Yahoo! Inc.

Internationalization is an architecture.
It is not a feature.

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 03:39:27 +0100

>review, but not without some thought.

Full support here.  The Language Subtag (and Extension) Reviewer is 
to manage a probably 30.000 subtags registry in one or two years, not 
a 72 language-tag registry (ISO639-3,6, ISO 3166-2, UN.locations, 
extensions, etc.).The involvement is politically significant. As 
someone put it, the LSR will have considerable discretion on major 
community issue. Opposition and competition may be rude. This is not 
dealing with a friendly JFC but with possibly opposing gov or bug 
business interest. Mailing with concerned interest, meetings, 
conferences where he will be expected IMHO will soon amount to full 
time job for two or three persons.

If I nominated myself it was to protect the IESG, the IETF and aslo 
Michael from making an error. In my mind I never considered the job 
as for an individual but for a specialised entity and a real budget. 
Who is going to foot the involved costs and salaries? Also, this is 
not about languages but about subtags. Why do you want to put a 
leading language expert there. The need if for a computer 
assisted-networked language oriented manager or politician.

With all that, the mailing list management is a necessity. If the 
reviewer cannot manage his list, how will he manage the concerned 
world. Only him will have enough autority to contain possible 
contentions. Will you suspend the posting rights of a Gov 
representative, or from a customer, or from a Manager of a Coporation 
member of the same Consortium as your company?

The

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 11:41:04 +0100

In this case, and especially in view of the latest IESG statement at
http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ietf-announce/current/msg02182.html
I would advise explicitly delegating this to the list admin.

     Brian

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 16:21:14 +0000

At 17:01 +0100 2006-02-20, Brian E Carpenter wrote:

>>But even if this were as obviously OK as you seem to think, the 
>>question remains as to whether finding someone to modereate a list 
>>should be part of a reviewer's job. Again, let's look past the 
>>current situation where we already have a competent reviewer and 
>>list admin in place.
>
>Sure, but since the approved draft says what it says, what do you want to do?

Fix the approved draft so that this mistake is corrected?
-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com

---

From: Michael Everson <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:54:50 +0000

At 09:43 -0800 2006-02-20, Addison Phillips wrote:

>You have not, on the other hand, administered the list itself.

Nor do I wish to. Get it?

I am jetlagged and very tired of this conversation, so I'm not going 
to say anything more about this today. Please get it fixed.
-- 
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com

---

From: Mark Crispin <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 10:14:14 -0800

> Fix the approved draft so that this mistake is corrected?

I second this proposal.

-- Mark --

http://staff.washington.edu/mrc
Science does not emerge from voting, party politics, or public debate.
Si vis pacem, para bellum.

---

From: Brian E Carpenter <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 20 Feb 2006 17:01:39 +0100

> of all of his duties to someone the IESG never considered or approved.

If we were talking about the reviewer qua reviewer, I would agree.
But this is an admin matter.

> IESG would not be happy if duties were delegated to someone the IESG felt

That's possible. But I come from the school of management that says you
don't interfere in delegation choices.

> where we already have a competent reviewer and list admin in place.

Sure, but since the approved draft says what it says, what do you want
to do?

     Brian

---

From: Erkki Kolehmainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 12:01:29 +0200

Mr. Morfin,

you state in another one of your notes of to-day:
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.

Yet you appear to be volunteering to nominate yourself for the position.

I'm confused, to say the very least, and I suspect that no further 
enlightment could possibly help.

Sincerely,
Erkki I. Kolehmainen

r&d afrac wrote:

> Full support here.  The Language Subtag (and Extension) Reviewer is to 
> manage a probably 30.000 subtags registry in one or two years, not a 72 
> language-tag registry (ISO639-3,6, ISO 3166-2, UN.locations, extensions, 
> etc.).The involvement is politically significant. As someone put it, the 
> LSR will have considerable discretion on major community issue. 
> Opposition and competition may be rude. This is not dealing with a 
> friendly JFC but with possibly opposing gov or bug business interest. 
> Mailing with concerned interest, meetings, conferences where he will be 
> expected IMHO will soon amount to full time job for two or three persons.
> 
> Michael from making an error. In my mind I never considered the job as 
> for an individual but for a specialised entity and a real budget. Who is 
> going to foot the involved costs and salaries? Also, this is not about 
> languages but about subtags. Why do you want to put a leading language 
> expert there. The need if for a computer assisted-networked language 
> oriented manager or politician.
> 
> reviewer cannot manage his list, how will he manage the concerned world. 
> Only him will have enough autority to contain possible contentions. Will 
> you suspend the posting rights of a Gov representative, or from a 
> customer, or from a Manager of a Coporation member of the same 
> Consortium as your company?
> 
> The 
>

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:17:32 +0100

> I second this proposal.

I'd vote "no" on this motion, each "fix" starts another round
of appeals by you-know-who, that is four months plus the time
needed to decide about it at IESG and IAB.

                          Bye, Frank

---

From: "Debbie Garside" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:07:07 -0000

+1 

-----Original Message-----
From: [email-masked]
[mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Frank Ellermann
Sent: 21 February 2006 10:18
To: [email-masked]
Cc: [email-masked]
Subject: Re: Language Tag Reviewer

 
> I second this proposal.

I'd vote "no" on this motion, each "fix" starts another round of appeals by
you-know-who, that is four months plus the time needed to decide about it at
IESG and IAB.

                          Bye, Frank

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
[email-masked]
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:19:52 +0100

At 11:01 21/02/2006, Erkki Kolehmainen wrote:
>Mr. Morfin,
>You state in another one of your notes of to-day:
>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.
>

Dear Erkki,
I suppose your mail is supposed to be sarcastic and as such 
ad-hominem and as such a troll and as such certainly not technical 
and as such totally innaceptable on IETF lists, but as such usually 
welcome if addressed to me :-) I will not answer the troll. But I 
will answer your WG-LTRU legitimate question I read as "why does a 
person who knows the job, documents a COI, explains that this is not 
a job for a single person, etc. volunteer for the job? Has him 
technical motivations or is him just opposing for the fun of it?"

I have not changed my position you seem not to have understood. I 
want clarity, transparency, stability, interoperability, 
openness  and inclusiveness - and I would also love professionalism. 
This opposes those who use confusion to confirm a de facto exclusive 
on the IANA registries, and this way on many other things.

Dec. 2004 RFC 3066 Bis was confused. I opposed it and it failed its 
LC. The WG-LTRU was created with my active support to correct this 
confusion. But it did not engage into it. Instead of reading its 
charter and start a clean sheet debate towards a serious response; it 
started from the failed Draft. It was even documented that its 
leading group considered the WG episode as an administratrive 
obligation to get the unchanged Draft approved. It juste lacked an 
"IETF consensus" stamp, even by a small affinity group.

We could have disputed for three years as WG-IDNA did. From 
experience I thought it was more efficient to force quality into the 
text. This is what I obtained. The WG-LTRU RFC 3066 Bis is not 
perfect, but it is acceptable. It does not offer interoperability, 
but it permits it. BUT, together with the Tunis agreement, it kills 
the hopes of exclusive.

So confusion is trying to take over and to kill what we consensually 
agreed and the IESG approved. I am used in this, so I must share in 
it while I was gone. They probably think I am less dangerous in than out.

We agreed the IESG will appoint a Language Subtag Reviewer. Now, we 
are leaked that the IESG would want to assign the job to a person 
on  March 2nd. No transparency. No nomination. I underlined this in 
nominating myself.

That person has an obvious COI he shares with other IESG Members. I 
document I have it too. So I can document discuss it and help the 
selection process.

No one has experience of the job. I document I have practical 
experience of the preparation of the job, with far less obligations 
because I do not consider constraints the way RFC 3066 Bis does. I 
document its prerequisites as I see them. So I can discuss them from 
experience.

The job cannot be performed by a single person. This is documented by 
several persons. They want to change our Consensus and create 
"subcontractors". This is a full clumsy organisation in disguise. The 
RFC 3066 Bis approach of Addison is correct. To show it, I say "we 
decided that there will be a responsible Language Subtag Reviewer". I 
am a candidate, I accept all the constraints, I have a policy. Let 
discuss a (business) plan because costs are involved. I oppose a 
dummy appointment patched by RFC 3066 Bis derogations a plenty.

The choice is between" the RFC 3066 Bis IETF consensus and its IESG 
approval" and an other agenda. I fought for the first and I will 
continue (however still detrimental, its is far, far better than the 
second). I fully understand others may prefer other agenda. They had 
to tell it at the WG-LTRU.

I am only happy if this move helped clarified the situation as Scott 
just did it. I fully support it. I however disagree with the idea 
that the Language Subtag Reviewer would be an individual. I support 
it should be an entity offering stability, resource, multiple 
competences etc. Its Manager being approved by the IESG. The best way 
to obtain this would be that the IESG appointment documented in RFC 
3066 bis be made through an MoU.

This is why I introduced what would be my policy. For such a policy 
to be negociated with the IESG (possibly with the review of the IAB 
and of the WG-LTRU). I noted some possible existing candidates. My 
own volunteering would lead to the incorporation of a dedicated 
entity. It could be an ISOC entity, comparable to the IASA.

jfc

---

From: "Scott Hollenbeck" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 10:50:00 -0500

Trimming cc's...

-Scott- 

> From: r&d afrac [mailto:[email-masked]] 
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 10:20 AM
> To: Erkki Kolehmainen
> Cc: 'Michael Everson'; 'LTRU Working Group'; [email-masked]
> Subject: Re: [OT] Re: [Ltru] RE: Language Tag Reviewer

[snip]

> on  March 2nd. No transparency. No nomination. I underlined this in 

Let's get something perfectly clear: there was no "leak".  Though it may
make sense in some situations, the IESG is not obligated to request
nominations.

The IESG will not be considering an appointment decision on the 2nd.  Ted
and I need more input before we can make a recommendation to the rest of the
IESG.

-Scott-

---

From: Mark Davis <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:49:32 -0800

I agree. This is a minor issue, that can easily be worked around.

Mark