Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal (updated)

["Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn at mindspring.com>]

Hi -

As a technical contributor ...

> From: "Addison Phillips" <addison at yahoo-inc.com>
> To: "John Cowan" <cowan at ccil.org>
> Cc: <ltru at ietf.org>
> Sent: Friday, August 04, 2006 11:33 AM
> Subject: Re: [Ltru] Charter update proposal (updated)
...
> The easiest way out of this conundrum would be:
> 
> "These additional code elements are intended to provide coverage for all 
> known human languages in use today."
> 
> This covers the reason why without addressing whether the effort has 
> been a success or not.
...

No.  The easiest fix is to not add the text at all.  A WG charter is not
the place to give a tutorial.  A WG charter, according to RFC 2418,

|   1. Lists relevant administrative information for the working group;
|   2. Specifies the direction or objectives of the working group and
|      describes the approach that will be taken to achieve the goals;
|      and
|   3. Enumerates a set of milestones together with time frames for their
|      completion.

So, we should identity the standards we propose to use or consider,
but there's no point to further elaboration.

Randy


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru at ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru