At 18:34 08/11/2005, Mark Davis wrote:
I don't know if there is any process or precedent for transferring the editorship of a document already in IESG Last Call, but I am now asking Randy and Martin to investigate this for draft-ietf-ltru-initial. I mentioned this possible course of action in private e-mails yesterday and have received no response at all, which perhaps is telling in its own way.For certain people, I found early on that it was not worth reading any of their rantings;
Dear Mark,I feel really sorry that you resort to this kind of off topic rant/trick to avoid documenting the exclusive convergence of RFC 3066 bis and of your own CLDR project and the way it helps the filtering issue this WG deals with (your own document we should currently discuss).
- CLDR is explicitly mentioned to the WG-ltru Charter, so I do not see your problem? Even if we never analysed the Charter yet. I want (as I suppose every other member) to be sure its particular filtering adequation to RFC 3066 bis was worth the exclusion of the other SSDO solutions, of ISO 11179 conformance, of RFC 4151 ABNF, etc. and of the other better schemes Addison documented he might propose.
- I wish also to be sure we are not going to indirectly introduce proprietary solutions/patents into the core of "globalized" Linux via this CLDR/LDML (we should then use Asianux?). I must say that I am worried because you do not answer my request for a formal warranty that the CLDR project will permanently and totally stay open use. And no obligation whatsoever to Unicode or/and to Unicode member will be borne from using CLDR locale files in relation with RFC 3066 bis. I must say I have difficulty understanding why the relation and waiver implied by the WG-ltru Charter, is no part of the proposed draft, as the copyright wording for the UN and ISO tables was not added to the registry. I like the legal things to be carried in a legal way. There are countries where the carelessness may be acceptable, there are others where it is not.
I am in particular concerned be the following Unicode wording not being adapted to the IETF legal wording.
<quote>- Any person is hereby authorized, without fee, to view, use, reproduce, and distribute all documents and files solely for informational purposes in the creation of products supporting the Unicode Standard, subject to the Terms and Conditions herein.
(question: what about other usages?)- Further specifications of rights and restrictions pertaining to the use of the particular set of data files known as the "Unicode Character Database" can be found in Exhibit 1. (question: this exhibit does not seem to cover RFC 3066 bis/CLDR joint usage, however mentioned in the WG-ltru Charter)
Each version of the Unicode Standard has further specifications of rights and restrictions of use. For the book editions, these are found on the back of the title page. For the online edition, certain files (such as the PDF files for book chapters and code charts) carry specific restrictions. All other files are covered under these general Terms of Use. To request a permission to reproduce any part of the Unicode Standard, please contact the Unicode Consortium. (question: would it not be better once for all to provide the necessary permission to IETF and Internet users, as an appendix of RFC 3066 bis?)
</quote>
there is a difference between honest disagreement and this kind of pernicious misreadings and wild, out-of-scope assertions.
This "wild, out-of-scope" assertions, are (?) - while we discuss their implication in the filtering document: - either a requested clarification over a plainly new reading of the "GB" ISO 3166 by the author of the proposed registry. - or the relation between RFC 3066 bis and CLDR ... which is part of the Charter (however the Charter does not introduce exclusive).
I note that this exclusive again others, therefore against my own organization work, is our _only_ point of contention.
An honest statement of yours as a President of Unicode affirming an open use of the CLDR and locale introduced data; and as an author of the Draft of a non ABNF exclusion of RFC 4151, ISO 11179, other SSDOs would immediately clarify that contention.
They'll look for any pretext to try to derail progress, but that will be the case no matter whether you reply to them or not. So best to just filter them out; or if you want to be on record as in opposition, do so to the effect that "the message is so filled with inaccuracies that it is not worth replying to in detail", since it just isn't worth your time to bother with them.
"derail progress" is an odd term to qualify Internet standard process appeal rights against a terminal option for the IETF. This pratice of yours will be helpfull to IESG, IAB or others to understand why you were unable to respond my repeated consensual harmonisation propositions.
Of course, in a better world, there would be a good, responsive mechanism for excluding such people from disrupting real work, but the IETF gears turn, as we have seen, astonishingly slowly.
Such a statement is your responsibility. You are at liberty to propose, as I suggested some, changes in the Internet standard process to avoid such situations due to a lack of consideration of societal, cultural and human prerequisites and the priority of common good over commercial interests and personal technical/political opinions or pride.
You have been doing a fine job as editor, and wouldn't want to see you driven away by this situation.
This has been expressed by everyone. But this does not change that Doug has duties to this WG debate. It would really help, if you stayed on topic. jfc morfin _______________________________________________ Ltru mailing list Ltru at 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.