On 02/07/12 09:47, Tom Gundersen wrote: > On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 9:49 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> Gimme a break. These kind of political issues aren't solved by "taking >> it upstream". Since when are politicians or people under the influence >> of politics known for their outstanding adherence to logic and reason? >> It's not such a simple technical thing that you can "take it upstream." >> If you have any idea how the ISO works you will wake up to the fact of >> how ridiculous that suggestion is. If Taiwan (ROC) can't get it to >> happen, what do you expect of us? > > I didn't mean to imply that this was a simple problem to solve (and I agree with > your aim for what that's worth). Simply that we do not want to make political > decisions at all. This might be a straightforward one, but it sets a > precedent and > next time around we might be asked to decide on something less clear-cut. > >> But as has been suggested maybe Arch should choose a different upstream >> for this kind of information. Please open your mind a little, a false >> standard is no standard at all. > > I had a look at ICU, but could not find any satisfactory > documentation. They claim > to take their data from the same ISO standard that we already use, but I could > find no explanation for the discrepancy. > > To be a bit constructive: IMHO any proposal for a change must be made in general > terms, and not by special-casing based on this issue. So, if we can > find a new upstream > that is comparable to ISO3166, but at the same time is somehow more > "neutral", that > would be something to consider I guess. > > I have to agree with Allan though, this issue is likely going nowhere. > I have found a solution. All mirrors in countries with disputed names are just removed from the official mirrorlist. Allan
