RE: [Ltru] Re: Liaison with TC37/SC2

["Debbie Garside" <debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk>]

I don't think Randy is correct and my nomination stands! It is useful to
have someone there on the ground BEFORE decisions are made.  

Given that I have some experience of this particular SC and WG I can say
Doug would not be out of his depth at all.  It is my opinion that the
knowledge Doug has of the RFC's in question wood be invaluable to this SC.  

As to travel, join ANSI.  One would hope that, like BSI, they would support
travel expenditure.

Best
Debbie

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Doug Ewell [mailto:dewell at adelphia.net] 
> Sent: 14 October 2006 07:47
> To: LTRU Working Group
> Subject: [Ltru] Re: Liaison with TC37/SC2
> 
> Marion Gunn <mgunn at egt dot ie> wrote:
> 
> > Might I suggest that, as Sue-Ellen (of ANSI, who used to be an ISO 
> > colleague of mine) is an American and SIL (RA for 639-3) 
> also American 
> > and ISO/TC 37/SC 2 already has an American Chair, we propose some
> > person(s) born in some other country less under the influence of 
> > current US foreign policy in re territorial/linguistic designations 
> > and more eager to respect more diverse opinions (excluding Austria, 
> > because either 639-1 or 639-2 - whichever! - already has an 
> Austrian 
> > RA, which only supports the other to be under LOC_US control)? I 
> > propose this as someone with an ever-growing number of 
> US-born friends 
> > who feel embarrassed by this irrational and totally 
> unnecessary push 
> > towards monopoly and who would rather much rather operate 
> > professionally in a freer, less unequal atmosphere (where 
> nobody can 
> > blame any one country, especially _their_ native country, 
> for errors - 
> > and who could blame anyone for desiring that?).
> 
> Well, now.
> 
> First of all, I am flattered and honored by Debbie's 
> nomination, but I am probably going to have to decline it for 
> two main reasons:
> 
> 1.  I have no experience as a liaison, and no prior formal 
> working relationship with, or membership in, an ISO SC or WG. 
>  While everyone has to start somewhere, I think this 
> particular project should benefit from a liaison with some 
> experience, not a trainee.
> 
> 2.  I have no travel budget, and no realistic hope of getting one.
> 
> I'm willing to be convinced that each of these is negotiable, 
> and not a show-stopper.  I'm guessing that item 1 is going to 
> turn out to be negotiable, and item 2 isn't.
> 
> Now about this American thing.
> 
> Completely disregarding the issue of me personally, I'm 
> deeply disappointed that national origin is being considered 
> a criterion for choosing a liaison.  I would have thought it 
> was about as important as eye color, or left-handedness 
> versus right-handedness.
> 
> I was not aware that being American-born prevented one, a 
> priori, from being "eager to respect more diverse opinions."  
> Perhaps there are some who do see it that way.
> 
> I certainly wouldn't consider myself a slave to U.S. foreign policy. 
> People who know me well know my objections to the current 
> administration's foreign policy and the aggressive, bullying 
> way it enforces it.  I suppose it is that aggressive stance, 
> combined with misplaced stereotypes, that makes some 
> non-Americans think we all support our administration.
> 
> As for "US foreign policy in re territorial/linguistic 
> designations," it hadn't occurred to me at the time that 
> there was such a thing.  I guess the State Department's 
> preference for "Burma" and "Burmese" over "Myanmar" is a 
> statement of sorts about their opposition to that country's 
> current leadership.  I don't know what that has to do with 
> the liaison position.  I've never advocated changing an 
> internationally recognized, ISO-approved language, script, or 
> country name in the Registry to better suit U.S. policy.
> 
> I tend to think of the Internet and WGs like this as true 
> melting pots, where I can work with someone for months or 
> years without regard for their race, age, national origin, 
> blood type, shoe size, etc.  I thought we had gotten past the 
> days on this list of questioning someone's motives or 
> abilities on the basis of what country they were born in or 
> live in.  I do not think I would automatically consider an 
> Irish person unqualified or inappropriate to be a liaison 
> simply because they were Irish.
> 
> I note in passing that I was nominated by a European.
> 
> I don't care to pursue this distasteful topic further.  Let's 
> find a liaison everyone in the WG can support, so we can have 
> ready access to the documents we need to get our work done.  
> Or, if Randy is correct and we can be assured of the 
> necessary access without a formal liaison, let's do that instead.
> 
> --
> Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  
> UTN #14 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
> http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
> https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 





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