Subject: [Ltru] RE: Language Tag Reviewer

From: Misha Wolf <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 11:22:17 +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

Mark Crispin wrote:

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

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: "Tex Texin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 05:47:15 -0800

-1

Sorry, for reasons that Ned and others gave, we should fix 3.2 and not
operate outside the manner described by the spec.

Tex Texin
Internationalization Architect,   Yahoo! Inc.

> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of Misha Wolf
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 3:22 AM
> Subject: RE: Language Tag Reviewer
> 
> 
> +1
> 
> [mailto:[email-masked]] On Behalf Of 
> Frank Ellermann
> 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.
>

---

From: Erkki Kolehmainen <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 16:50:25 +0200

Ted is probably right, despite the exposure for an appeal and subsequent 
delay, because otherwise we might make more room for other appeals and 
delays (although I don't insist on this). As far as I understand, there 
is likely to be so much work involved that the responsibility for the 
various functions should be split, totally independent from the persons 
who might be available and considered for appointment as the functionaries.

Sincerely,
Erkki I. Kolehmainen

---

From: r&d afrac <[email-masked]>
Date: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 17:07:15 +0100

At 15:50 21/02/2006, Erkki Kolehmainen wrote:
>Ted is probably right, despite the exposure for an appeal and 
>subsequent delay, because otherwise we might make more room for 
>other appeals and delays (although I don't insist on this). As far 
>as I understand, there is likely to be so much work involved that 
>the responsibility for the various functions should be split, 
>totally independent from the persons who might be available and 
>considered for appointment as the functionaries.

Opinion of YKW:
I support Frank position. We are not here to waste our time over the 
flaws of RFC 3066 Bis. Or this will be endless. I agree there is work 
for an LSR and full time people. But there must be a unique boss. 
This is what our consensus says. I politically oppose the solution 
all this leads to (an MoU entered between the IETF and Unicode, where 
Unicode is the LSR), but it is in full line with the text we agreed.

So the question is: according to the Interenet standard process where 
are we to discuss who is to be the LSR. Is this something for the 
WG-LTRU or is it something for the IETF main list? I suppose it is 
the IETF main list?

jfc