FWIW ...
On Fri, Jun 1, 2018 at 11:43 AM Peter Saint-Andre <stpeter@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On 6/1/18 10:27 AM, John R Levine wrote:
> On Fri, 1 Jun 2018, Peter Saint-Andre wrote:
>>> Require that documents have I18N Considerations sections, require review
>>> by an I18N directorate, and you'll see how quickly participants who used
>>> to not give a damn about I18 will come around, learn what they have to,
>>> and get their I18N work done. Suddenly the I18N directorate will be in
>>> demand.
>>
>> This is worth considering...
>
> I don't think it's a very good idea. It'll just lead to useless
> pro-forma language.
Quite possibly.
> It'd be OK if IESG review were to flag drafts and
> ask whether they should say something about I18N.
This does happen now during IESG Evaluation. I believe Alexey is the most likely AD to ask about i18n, but other ADs also ask, even ADs outside ART.
We typically don't see each other's AD Evaluations, so I don't know what happens before IESG Evaluation.
We might want authors to think about internationalization before IESG
review.
Yes, please do.
There are very few things that the IESG wants to be the first people to think about, and especially not when balloting on a document!
Spencer, speaking as 1/15th of the balloting IESG, most telechats
