> On 9 mrt. 2014, at 04:11, "l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx" <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > Yes, language is backwards compatible and scales up in complexity. > That's how we all learned it. But... > >> What creates a good communication is when the most comfortable person >> in the exchange brings his own level down to the level of the least >> comfortable person. > > That works well for one-to-one communication to get things across clearly > to the disadvantaged participant. It works less well in groups, where the > disadvantaged participant disrupts and holds back discussion. So in practice those participants usually show restraint and let you native speaking alpha males fight it out at the mike.... Not sure that that improves the quality of the IETF process..... > If a four-year-old joined ietf@xxxxxxxx, would we be required to try > and explain networking and the IETF to the four year old at a four-year-old's > level, or would we try and arrange a playdate for the four year old so that > the adults could converse in peace? But guess what, unlike the 4-year old, this person took the effort to learn a foreign language (bonus: no, speaking a foreign language is not the same as speaking English at double or triple volume when abroad ;-), got passed his or her shame because they felt they had something important to say. I'd say that the odds of that being meaningful are rather high, and most likely well worth the slight delay. Definitely not encouraging to have a native speaker in so many words tell you "sit in the back of the room and shut up until you speak better English" In the meantime, I am sure that many non-native speakers would welcome you volunteering the surplus time you have by being able to write in your own language to proof read and correct their drafts in the interest of improving the IETF output. Klaas > > I have no objection to a hypothetical four-year-old sitting quietly, > following along, and trying to learn from the conversation. But if the four > year old throws tantrums, well... > > professional conduct requires a minimum level of operational fluency > for useful interaction. > > Lloyd Wood > http://about.me/lloydwood > ________________________________________ > From: Guillaume Leclanche [guillaume@xxxxxxxxxxxxx] > Sent: 08 March 2014 16:32 > To: Wood L Dr (Electronic Eng) > Cc: ietf@xxxxxxxx > Subject: Re: IETF working language > > 2014-03-08 15:15 GMT+01:00 <l.wood@xxxxxxxxxxxx>: >> >> You'll find it stated in a number of places that the working language of >> the IETF is English. Well, yes. >> >> What is not stated is how good that English has to be to participate >> fully in technical discussion to get the most out of IETF participation. >> >> I would suggest that an IELTS score of 7.0 or higher, or equivalent, >> in all categories is a good indicator of being able to participate fully. >> If someone is unable to achieve that level, they, and everyone >> interacting with them, will find written exchanges very frustrating, >> to the detriment of discussion overall. >> >> If we're going to write RFCs codifying behaviour, we can codify this, too. > > IELTS 7 is "Good user: has operational command of the language, though > with occasional inaccuracies, inappropriacies and misunderstandings in > some situations. Generally handles complex language well and > understands detailed reasoning." > > What creates a good communication is when the most comfortable person > in the exchange brings his own level down to the level of the least > comfortable person. A bit like version negotiation in most protocols. > > Good English is backward compatible with Bad English ! > > Guillaume