Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050807000340.04e09880@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sun, 07 Aug 2005 00:52:27 +0200
To: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: RE: [Ltru] W3C tag policy disclaimers and IETF RFCs
In-Reply-To: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C5A8323@irvmbxw01.quest.c
 om>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0C5A8323@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

Dear Addison,
??? Why to be aggressive when I ask a question that will be asked at IESG 
Last Call? I did not rise it before not to confuse the debate. But you will 
now have to be ready to address it.

At 23:57 06/08/2005, Addison Phillips wrote:
>I do not "sign" my work here as a "member" of the W3C.

This affirmation seems signed:
"Addison P. Phillips
Globalization Architect, Quest Software
Chair, W3C Internationalization Core Working Group"
(is from the troll you signaled it?)

>The only person on this list that purports to represent more than one 
>person is YOU. I claim to represent only myself.

As far as I am concerned I certainly do not make that claim. Transparency 
is of the essence. This is why I switched to an organisation e-mail address.

You respond that you publish in the same conditions as S. Hawke. Perfect 
with me. Question is only: why don't you use the same disclaimer, while you 
plant a conflicting proposition in his garden? Would you think your 
proposition is better and you should "win" (You know I disagree with the 
attitude "S. Hawke's tags winning over Addison Philips' tags, or the other 
way around").

Or is there a good reason?

I only long clear, stable, efficient, scalable IETF tags we all can use in 
peace. This is a legitimate demand I will repeat again and again until I 
get them: this is what the IETF is about. I certainly agree that your 
proposition has merits for people thinking they need it. This is why the 
interest of the Internet community is that you find a way to agree with the 
Kindberg/Hawke RFC. I proposed two solutions: you may have an other one. 
Just expose it and if the WG supports it and if the IESG agrees it fits the 
RFC on tags they approved, it will be accepted.

Or you may document how your Draft partly or totally obsoletes their RFC.

Either way is OK with me. But conflicting confusion cannot be.

>You claim to represent organizations as well as the opinions of others.

This is my job to report and document users needs and problems , and I am 
trusted to bring solutions. I do not represent "opinions" however. I deal 
with facts. I have or share personal opinions and propositions. When they 
are supported by some and becomes running code, solutions or decisions, 
they become facts.

Instead of opposing/despising your users, may I suggest you listen to them? 
I am very patient and I do not worry too much about people being hurting. 
What counts is a good result. I will always be available to kindly help you 
in that area. But I am sorry, I cannot support what blocks my R&D, opposes 
RFC we use and people tell me they do not want.

All the best.
jfc




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru