Hi Toerless,
At 04:27 AM 10-08-2020, Toerless Eckert wrote:
I was primarily thinking about the the fact that the whole community should
be able to claim to have a say in the policies, eve if they are non-native
english speaker.
I fully agree that the execution of the policies through just current
feedback to last-call mailing list would just result in randomn subsets of
the community getting involved, and primarily native english speakers.
Hence i think the policy should be to
ensure that there is a neutral, community selected set of language experts
that executive the community desired policy. I was recommending a nomcom
style election process for them as one possible way to achieve this. I
could perfectly think of pairs of native english speakers in the community
that would cancel each others extreme views of lanugage out, thinking it
could result in good compromise language....
On reading your reply I was reminded of a recommendation (made
several years ago) to get more non-native English-speaking people in
one of the review teams. It was probably not implemented for unknown
reasons. The language experts are actually the people within the RFC
Editor Function (it is not the RSE who does that work).
In theory, the whole community has a say in policies. That is not
how it worked in practice. I don't know whether the idea which you
proposed would work as I am not involved in execution.
IMHO not much different from what i was saying. I just took the means of
Yes.
gaming the process also into account. Aka: selective aggregation of
received opinions from the list, moving decisions to different forums than
email where the weight of pro/con would be known different, etc. pp.
It is up to the IESG to decide about the above.
Regards,
S. Moonesamy
