Dear Sam,
I go through your comment.
At 22:10 20/01/2006, Sam Hartman wrote:
>>>>> "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.
Not much actually as everyone knows to use a page. It can be a
private WIKI, it can be a form (like the WGIG), etc. The only real
thing is that people accept to be polite to speed up the process.
This means that when they quote their page of a Draft they include
the link, and that there is a WG menu page with the links of the
people who want a link (only a few want one: everyone see if they are
competent or a fool).
Then quickly there are positions on the matter at hand. The game is
to cooperate to reach the same wording. Hence a consensus. You then
understand that a consensus is not something you discuss, but you
uncover in common. It had to be here before. You just discuss of the
"if" to achieve before one can all agree. Nothing common with a
compromise. Nor with a dominance.
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.
This is why I asked the IAB.
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.
This is why I asked the IESG. The IESG having not answered I asked the IAB.
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.
Here is where we misunderstand. I want to convince no one. I raise a
question. I only want to know where these issues should be addressed
in the opinion of the IETF consensus.
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.
I am not interested in bringing new issues to the IETF. I have
shopping list for consensual recipes on the way to communicate
through the digital ecosystem. And I make my own user QA.
There are existing entities. If some proposes a good recipe (in toto
or in parte) and it is good quality, I am glad with it. There are two
problems: when one is de facto exclusive and no good, or when there
is none. Before building my own solution I want to check there is no
other way.
Again, you may engage us in debate, but you should not be allowed to
stop our work.
dear! I think you really missed what happened!!! You (IETF) stopped
my work in wanting to get a technically absurd and messy exclusive in
my area (multilingual registry systems R&D).
I never stopped your work! I carried it! Against an affinity group
only interested in pushing me and all the ohers out of the market
through technical constraint. Do you _really_ think the Draft IESG
refused in January (partly because of me) is the same as the one you
approved in November?
When the WG started, I proposed we would wrapp the Draft quickly in
working on the Draft together (I was the main opponent). We would
have had a serious open IETF Draft in days. But the affinity group
thought the WG-LTRU was only an administrative obligation to get
their text approved! Harald has documented the number of posts I had
to send to obtain the current ABNF and some wording, they are now so
proud of. Read the debates and look at the changes I painstakingly
obtained to prevent ABNF leaks and confusion. This is not perfect,
hence the appeal. The need was not so much the Draft to go one way or
another, but not to be confuse. I made them to clarify it against me.
This was dangerous for me and non-US industries. But Tunis has
limited most of that danger, because the world consensus should
consider RFC 3066 Bis as local to the Internationalised US Internet
application. The need now is to keep its users compatible with us. We
need interoperability and security. The ABNF does not include but now
permits "language code interoperability" (by adding an RFC 4151 users
space for example). The security considerations make the Draft
dangerous. Hence the appeal. Hence the appeal agree or we will
document it in real life.
The problem is that the IETF works by consensus but thinks by
hummings. Working by consensus means that I MAY be right against
_everyone_ (here an external affinity group in a new area). But the
community has no mechanism to address that case. What to do if I am
really right? To come with my supporters: this will start a war and
will convince no one. I have the hummings but no consensus. Totally
disruptive.
The only way I found is filibustering. Because this means only one
expandable person, which will have to demonstrate his results. May be
there is another one? Tell me.
IMHO In this case, the faulty party is the IESG. The IETF may need
and create the ietf-languages@xxxxxxxx mailing list. But it has no
capacity to run it, all the more as a private trick. Michael Everson
cannot be an IETF person because we have no one else of similar level
to check if he is right (look at his comment today). The "kitchen
syndrome" with Harald, Mark Crispin etc. (this is all the year long)
shows we have no reliable experts. The IETF is an engineering
community, not a linguistic society.
ietf-languages@xxxxxxxx is to be made operational, controlled by the
IANA, documented on the IANA site, experts from every languages would
share in it, sponsored by their country, their academy, their
community, the UNESCO, etc. They will probably elect Michael Everson
as Chair. At the IANA. Not at the IETF nor Unicode. Please remember
that they have now to document all the networked languages of the
world and registered 72 exceptions in 10 years.
jfc
_______________________________________________
Ietf@xxxxxxxx
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf