Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly in upcoming registry)

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:20:44 -0600

"Phillips, Addison" <addison at amazon dot com> wrote:

> In the meantime, we could use some experience with rfc-to-be-4646bis. 
> Constant rewriting will not improve matters.

I specifically would not want to recharter for the purpose of tweaking 
the existing text.  In fact, I might not participate in a LTRU 3.0 at 
all if tweaking the existing text turns out to take a large percentage 
of the WG's time, as it did in LTRU 2.0.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ

---

From: "Randy Presuhn" <[email-masked]>
Date: Mon, 13 Jul 2009 18:15:24 -0700

Hi -

> From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
> To: "LTRU Working Group" <[email-masked]>
> Sent: Monday, July 13, 2009 5:20 PM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] rechartering to handle 639-6 (was FW: Anomaly inupcoming registry)
...
> of the WG's time, as it did in LTRU 2.0.
...

As a technical contributor...
(1) I'm not sure how a "language tag registry update" WG could be
chartered that wouldn't involve tweaking existing text.  Unless
operational experience had demonstrated that text to be seriously
broken, I'd see no point in re-opening it.

As co-chair...
(2) Is there any purpose for which you could conceive of a rechartering
of the WG that you *would* support?

Randy