>>>>> "JFC" == JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey@xxxxxxxxxx> writes:
JFC> 3. I proposed an evolution in the WG working method. In using
JFC> position links: every contributor expresses his positions on
JFC> a page he can update as the debate goes. I proposed this to
JFC> the GNSO WG-Review which supported it and I use it in some
JFC> work. This filters out "standard" participants' blabla. It
JFC> permits everyone to stay, every concept to be documented and
JFC> progressively trimmed, and external experts to call
JFC> in. Consensus is when all the positions are equivalent or
JFC> have identified they cannot agree. Consensus review is easy
JFC> and informative.
JFC> This was not considered.
Actually I think this is one of the better ideas you've come up with.
I think it needs a lot of work, but I do hope that as we look at WG
tools we have ways to track issues raised by individuals etc.
I'm not sure that the details of where the web pages matter.
I think the important abilities are to be able to answer questions like:
* Is Sam still upset?
* How many people just don't care about this?
* How many people want some solution but don't care about what it is.
JFC> 4. I have engaged an IESG, and now an IAB appeal, to know if
JFC> this kind of debate is, or not, part of the IETF. IESG said
JFC> "no".
Actually, that isn't really what we said although I do agree that you
probably read our response that way.
We said that the type of debate you're looking for should not take
place on the ietf-languages list.
We did not answer your question of where the debate should take place.
I had intended to write you an individual message giving some
suggestions for where the debate should take place.
Personally I think that your questions about the scope of the IETF,
the scope of ietf language tags and the general approach to
internationalization and multi-lingual issues currently belong on the
ietf@xxxxxxxx list, not on the ietf-languages lists.
However, while I think it is reasonable for you to try and build a
consensus to support your decision you need to stop sending messages
if it becomes clear that you are not convincing people that you are
right. Our process needs to give you an opportunity to try and
convince people that you are right. However if you fail to do so, we
cannot allow you to bring things to a grinding halt.
So, bring up any new issue you like on the ietf@xxxxxxxx list; please
be as constructive as you can be. Let the discussion die out if it is
clear you aren't convincing people. Respect any warning you see from
the sargents at arms or Brian. If you fail to respect susch warnings
don't be surprised if your ietf@xxxxxxxx posting rights are suspended.
Again, you may engage us in debate, but you should not be allowed to
stop our work.
--Sam
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf