On 04:01 14/04/2005, Frank Ellermann said:
JFC (Jefsey) Morfin wrote: > supported (a) by what seems to be an extended anglo-saxon > culture group, (b) by a non-extended-anglo-saxon culture. Ground control to major Jefsey, are you talking about Randy's 5.49 : 3.51 decision ? None of these nine people represents any culture, they just have different _technical_ reasons to want more or less info in the registry. Among these reasons are the size of the registry, the problems for the tag review procedure, the "ugliness" of too many NCRs in the registry, and the bogosity of adding Féroé to Faroe if the real (native) name is Føroyar (maybe).
Dear Frank,we obviously are not here for the fun. But for the technical, political, economical and societal implications every IETF standard and procedure has. IETF has made the choice of having no market study/review prior its publications and to wait for the market inputs before making an RFC a standard. This has lead some technical, political, economical and societal interests to join the IETF to use its RFC mechanism to try to influence the market in its favor. This is precisely right now under debate on the main list between the Chair and Members from various types of organizations - including non-profits like me - and individual dedicated voluntaries like you (from what you explained). This creates a problem between people who are paid and have time and people who pay and have far less.
The diversity of their cultures and interests is precisely what permits the IETF to propose valuable documents and acknowledge de facto standard resulting from these documents. There are cases where the same need is addressed by different solutions due to the impossibility to find a common background between two positions.
I think we have fully demonstrated that in this case. As you indicate there are 9 persons on side, attracting no more (*). There is one opponent because no one in the real world seem to accept that what these nine people propose makes enough sense to worry about. Let get real, if I am the only opponent here it is because I probably am the only opponent who instead of shrugging shoulders, acknowledge the real need expressed by Addison.
(*) we could obviously call upon number like in the MARID case. What would be the interest?
We could also evaluate who is for that among paid and paying members communities. This is usually a good way to evaluate what is of medium and what is of long range interest to the users. Commercial interest run market studies and if they are big enough will impact the market anyway. NonCom have usually the liberty of the vision and the determination which "makes it happen". They have not the immediate time - but they have the long term time.
In this case we have two opposed interests. People wanting to patch XML, proceed with CLDR like plans, possibly sell their work and expertise through ISO and similar channels. These are good and legitimate interests. But they conflict - and will not defeat - with the fact that a Multilingal Internet is not an "Internationalized confusion" but based needs to be based upon a clear, stable, user acceptable/ed, network architecture integrated identification of the languages parameters. As long as they want to lead the game, instead of serving it because they are as every other frustrated by the (partly voluntary) lack of understanding of IESG/IETF, they will not go through and are wasting time for their totally legitimate need.
IRT the practicalities you talk about, you should consider them in the broader perspective of true relation assistance services (or extended services) and economy. But this is another internet architectural aspect, parallel in need and similar to multilingualism (cf. OPES which, IMHO, are mudded by the problem as this WG).
jfc _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at lists.ietf.org https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
Note Well: Messages sent to this mailing list are the opinions of the senders and do not imply endorsement by the IETF.