Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050619000038.04c41550@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Sun, 19 Jun 2005 01:04:40 +0200
To: Frank Ellermann <nobody@xyzzy.claranet.de>, ltru@ietf.org
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: review of the day.
In-Reply-To: <42B4953A.6A42@xyzzy.claranet.de>
References: <6.2.1.2.2.20050618104438.04404960@pop.online.fr>
	<42B4953A.6A42@xyzzy.claranet.de>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: langtags@afrac.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

At 23:42 18/06/2005, Frank Ellermann wrote:
>r&d afrac wrote: [...]
>See <http://article.gmane.org/gmane.ietf.ltru:2313:raw> for
>the timestamp lines of your original article.  This dupe is
>2312, so it arrived before 2313.  The "megatron" server is
>an odd beast at weekends, not the first time that I saw it.

This is because I mailed it as Jefsey. And remailed it as rd@afrac. When I 
wanted to delete the first one Moderator had already approved it. Apologies.

> > there must be the debate on the WG-ltru Charter
>
>The charter is TTBOMK debated before the creation of a WG,
>then there's a "BoF" or a similar ritual (maybe they also
>"hum" or drum or whistle or sing), and an IETF WG pops up,
>complete with charter and chair(s).
>
>  From there it's love it or leave it, excl. "re-charter" or
>"disband" for the moment.  Better check the details, but
>I'm almost sure that you confuse something important here.

You confuse two debates. The IESG debate I contributed to positively. The 
first thing a WG should do, in common opinion (see debate on ietf@ietf on 
the matter) is first to have a common understanding of the Charter. This WG 
has not done this yet and there is no consensus on the reading of the 
Charter. Randy promised this debate once the Draft would be completed.

Disagreeing on the way to properly address the Charter, and having observed 
that the difference are fundamental, I have no real interest in this WG 
until it discusses what the Charter means.

> > I recall that I committed to produce my own Draft within
> > 2 weeks after the end of that debate.
>
>IIRC you said something about April.  If you've submitted
>your draft I missed it, in that case please post a pointer.

I said "mid-April" because a WG usually starts in discussing what it is 
going to do. When I saw that this WG was not proceeding by the usual book, 
I said I would produce a Draft 15 days after the end of the debate over the 
Charter (if there still was a difference of vision between Addison/Mark and 
me). I see no reason why that debate would not lead to a consensus. Randy 
leads the show. We can only comment his ways from the quality of the final 
deliverable. Not yet.

> > I removed myself from the WG-ltru
>
>That does not exactly match my recollection, you used to
>call it "enjoying my vacation".

Yes. These imposed vacations shown me there were low chances that the 
current trend would correct itself and that my pushing, outside of an open 
debate to understand what the Charter means, could not help. So I decided 
to wait that debate.

> > start a private WG on the issue and to inform the IESG of
> > the reasons why. I would prefer not.
>
>IMHO that's strictly your business.  You're of course free
>to invite the IESG to any private WG.  OTOH they are forced
>to watch many official WGs, so I don't see your point here.

The point is that if there are two supported conflicting Drafts on the same 
matter, this will only delay both.

I do not mind the delay since I am interested in an ISO 11179 consistent 
approach that ISO 639-6 will provide, and that ISO 639-4 will determine a 
few things about ISO 639-3 and -6. The proper sequence is to get ISO 639-3 
as SIL's list accepted (in removing from the project the parts which 
belongs to ISO 639-4). So W3C and Unicode people can have their 
classification now.

Then to have the Draft 3066 tuned to match this situation, in removing its 
desire to replace BCP 47. To have IS0 639-4 finalised and including the 
responses we need. To have  ISO 639-6 finalised as ISO 11179 consistent 
(this what Debbie Garside, says). To check that consistency and to write a 
BCP 47 Internet framework fully compliant with all the ISO 639 parts, with 
all the issues concerning ISO 15924 and ISO 3166 being addressed (they are 
built in ISO 639-4).

I think everyone here would agree that it is a correct scenario, consistent 
with the ISO plan (and therefore with my reading of the Charter?).

Obviously we can go faster in simplifying RFC 3066, trusting the ISO 
process (with some warranties if they are too slow). This will address most 
of the concerns of IESG in the way IESG want: consistency with ISO. If the 
Draft, which rebuilds the world instead of patching an XML need,is 
advanced, I will probably do that.

> >> Maybe it's simpler to solve these problems generally for all
> >> review lists, add them to the general area and let the Chair
> >> pro forma appoint the list owner as listmom.
>
> > No. This situation is ruled by RFC 2860.
>
>Okay, that makes sense.  So your proposal is to keep RfC 2860
>as normative reference, let Addison hit me because I proposed
>to remove it, and be done with it ?

I am not sure what you mean by "let Addison hit me". I just submit that 
IANA mailing lists are managed by the IANA under RFC 2860 and that if there 
are lacks in RFC 2860 they have to be addressed in RFC 2860 bis. I have 
suggested some points to Brian Carpenter, based upon the experience of the 
application of RFC 3066 and others, he said he retained them (main ietf 
list). I suggest you ask him to add our concerns to his wish list. These 
points (RFC 3934 and removal of Chair and Examiners) seem important enough. 
I think that there should be a Committee, gathering people (4 or 5) from 
various origins (geogr. area, entities), selected by the NomCom for a 
period of one year.

> > I am going to use my "banning from a IANA list exercised by
> > a private person without the protection of RFC 3934 rules nor
> > the appeal capacity of RFC 2860" to oppose the Draft 3066 bis
>
>That "private person", as you put it, is among other things the
>list owner, the author of RfC 1766, the author of 3066, and the
>former Chair until a few weeks ago.

Good for him, but I do not see what has to do. Anyway IETF goes by the 
rule, not by the persons.

The flaw is that he is the list owner. This only means a CIO when he was 
IESG Chair. I hope he did not initially accept the Draft as an AD?
All I see is that he was embarrassed to the point of wanting to claim being 
the owner of a "IANA list".

>  And he used the RfC 3934 rules in this case exactly for the reason you 
> quoted.

(a) he did not respect RFC 3934 and this is why he had to claim the list is 
private. I think I understand some of his reasons.
(b) I am not sure which reason I quoted you refer to. In claiming the list 
private he only confirmed my reasons against the way the list is organised.

> > On 14:52 17/06/2005, Brian E Carpenter said:
> >>> I thought that ad hominem attacks were considered
> >>> unacceptable on this list?
> >> On any IETF list, actually. It's best all round if people
> >> remain professional and polite, however strong the
> >> disagreement.
>
>You could test the RfC 3934 and 2860 procedure for this case.

I have nothing to "test". The fact that RFC 3934 and 2860 are not enforced 
show the list is private. Harald confirmed it.
(a) RFC 3934 and 2860 do not apply
(b) there is no RFC 3066 ietf-languages@iana.org list in operation as per 
RFC 3066. The Draft must make sure this situation is corrected. RFC 2860 
bis is to set up rules to make sure this kind of private holding of a IANA 
list and related privileges cannot happen again.

I have nothing more to add to this.
jfc

PS. you claimed you filtered a mail of mine. This is too bad: I suggested 
you to contact the people of the DIN over ISO 639, 3166, 15924 issues. I am 
sure they could provide you with information and be interested in your 
inputs and in your reading of Peter's text and Addison's and Mark's draft 
which are quoted in the ISO propositions.




_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru