Subject: [Ltru] response from/to a non-member

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 20:13:07 +0100

I was copied this mail from Michael Everson in response of a mail 
from Scott on this mailing list. I suppose it did not came through as 
posted by a non member.

At 19:19 21/02/2006, Michael Everson wrote:
>At 08:00 -0500 2006-02-21, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
>>Mr. Everson has stated that he is willing to review language tags, but he is
>>unwilling to moderate or maintain the ietf-languages list.
>
>Because that function is not something I have ever done, nor is it 
>something that should have been added to the reviewer's 
>responsibilities. And no one ever bothered to ask me my opinion of 
>this until the draft was "approved". This is NOT my fault.

1. I think this shows the confusion of the debate. No one has ever 
considered that the Language Tag Reviewer job was involved. That job 
has been terminated by the IANA, closing the Language Tag Registry.

I appealed the IESG from this repeated confusion from our AD. I hope 
that all this eventually clarifies when my appeals are accepted and 
addressed. Now my appeal concerning the RFC 3066 Bis security 
consideration has been answered in a way I will appeal but in a non 
blocking way, it is urgent that we can proceed with a correct, 
consistent, stable and professional implementation of RFC 3066 Bis.

2. This working group is the closest IETF WG from what Michael 
Everson did. Everyone knows the way Michael Everson has decided to 
relate with me, so the following proposition will most probably be 
accepted as reflecting an IETF consensus. I propose that when the 
IESG appoints the Language Subtag Reviewer, officially closing the 
Language Tag Registry and the long mission of Michael Everson, they 
mention the true and warm thanks of the IETF (language) community for 
the work he accomplished. I suppose they intended to do it anyway, 
but I think important that Michael knows that we all, individually, 
actually share in it. Even "Mr Morfin". I mean it. We may conflict 
over important issues, we all are volunteers dedicating time and 
efforts towards the common good. I will probably say this is 
"bollocks", but I now consider Michael like a good friend.

jfc

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

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 11:40:04 +0900

>1. I think this shows the confusion of the debate. No one has ever 
considered that the Language Tag Reviewer job was involved.

Wrong. RFC 3066bis explicitly says:
(in 3.8.  Initialization of the Registries)

    Until the IESG officially appoints a
    Language Subtag Reviewer, the existing Language Tag Reviewer SHALL
    serve as the Language Subtag Reviewer.

Regards,    Martin.

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 05:17:27 +0100

>    serve as the Language Subtag Reviewer.

IMHO the above precisely says that the existing Language Tag Reviewer 
_person_ performs (on a temporary basis) the Language Subtag Reviewer 
function. His responsibility is then limited to the RFC 3066 language 
tags to be grandfathered into the Language Subtag Registry.

The Language Tag Reviewer function relates to the Language Tag 
Registry. That Registry has been obsoleted by the IANA. I agree this 
was premature, and leads to some distorsions, but this has been done. 
The Language Tag reviewer job does not exist anymore.

My appeal has been answered and the IESG has introduced a solution 
which may permit to avoid a delaying appeal to the IAB. I documented 
I intended to adopt it. Unless it meets further unexpected 
difficulties, this should permit the IANA to promptly create the 
[email-masked] mailing list.

The difficulty is that its designated moderator, the existing 
Language Tag Reviewer _person_, has made clear he has serious 
restrictions playing the role. Due to his disinterest in the WG-LTRU 
and his affinities with the majority group I assumed his agreement 
had been obtained before this text was consensually accepted. I 
should obviously have verified. Now we have the problem.

IMHO, Network stablity and IETF responsiblities (RFC 3935) require 
the Language Subtag Reviewer to be an entity such as Unicode, ICANN, 
Unesco, an ISO Member, etc. It must be level with the other 
Maintenance Authorities. Since this does not seem obvious to 
everyone, what I did not expect, this has to be discussed. The debate 
concerns the entity to appoint and the negociation regarding its 
organisation, staff, budget, support etc..

Please, in your Chair capacity, would you be so kind as to let us 
know if this is a topic you consider as belonging to the WG-LTRU 
mailing list or to the IETF main list?
Thank you.
jfc

---

From: Frank Ellermann <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 06:20:58 +0100

r&d afrac wrote:

>>    Language Subtag Reviewer, the existing Language Tag
>>    Reviewer SHALL serve as the Language Subtag Reviewer.

> IMHO the above precisely says that the existing Language Tag
> Reviewer _person_ performs (on a temporary basis) the
> Language Subtag Reviewer function.

Yes, there is no "interregnum", 3066bis doesn't allow for that.

As we just see that was a good idea.  And IANA also documents
this on their Web page:  "Expert Review (Michael Everson)"

> His responsibility is then limited to the RFC 3066 language

His responsibilties are defined in 3066bis.  If he doesn't
like that he'll resign, only then we'd get an "interregnum".

                        Bye, Frank

---

From: Martin Duerst <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:59:18 +0900

>IMHO the above precisely says that the existing Language Tag Reviewer 
_person_ performs (on a temporary basis) the Language Subtag Reviewer function.

Agree.

 >His responsibility is then limited to the RFC 3066 language tags to be 
grandfathered into the Language Subtag Registry.

Disagree. There is no such limitation in RFC 3066 bis.

 >My appeal has been answered and the IESG has introduced a solution which 
may permit to avoid a delaying appeal to the IAB. I documented I intended 
to adopt it. Unless it meets further unexpected difficulties, this should 
permit the IANA to promptly create the [email-masked] mailing list.

This mailing list already exists. As Harald documented recently,
you can subscribe/unsubscribe to it without problems. The list
isn't hosted by IANA, but that's an administrative detail.

 >The difficulty is that its designated moderator, the existing Language 
Tag Reviewer _person_, has made clear he has serious restrictions playing 
the role. Due to his disinterest in the WG-LTRU and his affinities with the 
majority group I assumed his agreement had been obtained before this text 
was consensually accepted.

As I have explained in another mail, I think Michael's current
disagreement is mostly due to misunderstandings.

Michael has choosen not to be involved in WG-LTRU. The WG decided
what we thought was appropriate for the Language Subtag Reviewer.
While many if not most of us had Michael in mind, I don't think
it would have been appropriate to design the role to fit a particular
person.

 >IMHO, Network stablity and IETF responsiblities (RFC 3935) require the 
Language Subtag Reviewer to be an entity such as Unicode, ICANN, Unesco, an 
ISO Member, etc. It must be level with the other Maintenance Authorities.

The Maintainance Authority is IANA. The reviewer does not maintain
the registry.

 >Please, in your Chair capacity, would you be so kind as to let us know if 
this is a topic you consider as belonging to the WG-LTRU mailing list or to 
the IETF main list?

[chair hat on]

Scott has asked the LTRU Co-chairs and the WG to discuss the various choices
for solving the issue that the current wording of RFC 3066 bis regarding
the Language Subtag Reviewer does apparently not coincide with the
preferences of a primary candidate for that position.

My understanding is that you are proposing the following solution
to the problem:

6. Do not change RFC 3066bis, but write another RFC that says
    that the Language Subtag Reviewer is a structured entity
    with staff, budget, and so on.

Did I get that right?

Regards,      Martin.

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Wed, 22 Feb 2006 16:43:23 +0100

>    with staff, budget, and so on.

I have actually two propositions. They are based upon my desire not 
to change anything in RFC 3066 Bis and on my evaluation that only an 
organised, budgeted, competent and responsible (RFC 3935) structure 
can be appointed by the IESG. This does not prevent Michael, nor 
myself, nor several other competences we know to be hired by this 
structure, to get their personal/professional interests and 
reputation protected and to use their talents in the area they want 
with a precise workload.

1. my first proposition is to discuss which existing (or to create) 
structure can fullfil the job. To enlight the nature of the debate, I 
see four possible immediate candidates: Unicode, ICANN, ISOC, a IASA 
structure to create. I also consider UNESCO, ITU, INCOTERMS, and many 
other national/cultural/professional SSDOs or consulting firms.

2. my second proposition, formalises your own proposition in writing 
a separate RFC specifying the organisation, policy, etc. of the LSR. 
This will permit (a) to easily adapt it to reality [it could 
initially stays a Draft if the IESG agrees] and to the status of 
negotiations [possibly becoming an MoU with an external organisation] 
(b) to protect stability in case of change (the entity disappears, 
diverges policy with the IETF, etc.) (c) could permit to obtain 
annual reports, activity statements, etc. which have not been discussed yet.

This would match Scott's request. This could be written in a way it 
can initially concern a single individual Reviewer. It protects the 
Reviewer stability when there is a BCP 47 update. It makes clear to 
the [email-masked] members what are the limits imposed to 
the Reviewer : this will most probably protect the forum from many 
debates in the form "AFRAC or others registries support this, why do 
you not want to support it".

jfc