One last comment and then I have to move on to other things
today....
--On Friday, June 1, 2018 13:32 -0500 Nico Williams
<nico@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> To pursue the analogy, AFAIK (correct me if I'm wrong) we
>> don't have that many pure cryptography experts at the IETF.
>> We do have folks who know enough about crypto to make
>> intelligent, well-informed recommendations with regard to the
>> use of cryptography in Internet protocols. Perhaps that's
>> mostly what we need for i18n, too. Whether we call this
>> "expertise" or "competence" doesn't especially matter. (FWIW,
>> although like Nico I've learned plenty about i18n and I've
>> even authored some RFCs on the topic, I do *not* consider
>> myself an expert.)
>
> This is my point exactly. We can make do with the
> participants that we have. And since they are all we have,
> making do is what wet must do. Of course, we may attract new
> participants, and we should educate the ones we already have.
> So let's do that.
Let me pursue the crypto analogy a bit. I contend that the
main problem with i18n expertise (or competence) in the IETF is
not what people know and have learned but that we've had a lot
of people participating in the debates who don't know what they
don't know. As least when I was hanging around with security
experts, that was rarely a problem and people who had it were
rapidly educated or disabused about the level of knowledge.
That is not "negativity", it is trying to both educate and to
get the S/N ratio to a level at which serious discussions are
possible.
Some of you know that I spend several years primarily working on
food composition data. We used to have a saying that the number
of people in the world with strong opinions about food, food
nomenclature, and what was an was not good to eat (from either a
health or enjoyment standpoint) was roughly equal to the number
of people in the world who had the privilege of eating
regularly. Those opinions and beliefs were sufficiently tied to
strong cultural norms that most of those people, when confronted
with science, facts, or counterexamples simply became more
insistent, and often belligerent, about their positions.
The IETF I18n situation feels a lot like that, with the
condition of someone expressing strong opinions or behaving as
if they believe they are experts being that they speak and/or
read language. I'm not aware of anyone who has contributed
significantly to I18n work in the IETF who is unwilling to
explain and educate as long as there is some evidence of
willingness to listen and learn. The thing that drive people
off and contributes to a sense of hopeless frustration is the
noise from people who don't know what they don't know and who,
from their behavior patterns, aren't interested in finding out.
I'd like to think that problem does not occur in
security-related work, at least to the same extent. Maybe it is
because everything has to be learned and no one things they were
born with security knowledge. Maybe because there are clearer
knowledge categories and boundaries. Since the crypto expert
example was used, probably most of those who aren't don't think
they are and are swiftly (and I hope gentle) corrected. I've
also observed that, when real crypto experts are needed, the
Security Area is able to find them, talk with them, and
understand and make use of the explanations. The analogy of
that may not be the case for I18n and the N/S ratio doesn't help.
john
