Message-Id: <6.2.1.2.2.20050623103619.03965c50@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 13:13:59 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>, <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] QED
In-Reply-To: <005f01c577b7$62be8220$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE0654EDFA@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsoft.com>
	<6.2.1.2.2.20050623001650.043712e0@mail.afrac.org>
	<005f01c577b7$62be8220$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
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

At 07:49 23/06/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
> > ??? We only wait for a common reading of the Charter and of its thorny
> > points, as announced by Randy. We do not think the Draft concepts follow
> > the Charter. The recent responses over x-tags show it.

Dear Randy,
I thank you for your response.

>As I wrote nearly two months ago:
>  I do wish you would not twist my words.  I don't know whether the problem is
>  in your reading, your understanding, or your writing.  I suggest you 
> engage the
>  services of someone fluent in technical French and English.  I know that 
> many
>  such people exist.

I consider this as insulting to you (as well as discriminatory for me, but 
I am used to).

I always said I speak Franglish and read commonly clear English. You chair 
an IETF WG. IETF is open to everyone on an equal opportunity basis without 
discrimination of origin, sex, language, beliefs, money, etc. Your role is 
to make sure I understand. Because I am dedicating time and efforts to 
offer you a prototype of the standard IETF international user.

If I do not understand, nor the money to get your texts explained to me by 
experts, it is likely that millions of people around the world will not. I 
am not here to embarrass you, but to help you producing an internationally 
useful deliverable. A free common readability, interest, acceptability QA. 
If you want your words not to be twisted (what they are not, cf. below) 
make sure I cannot twist them. Because millions will twist them otherwise.

>  To be perfectly clear:
>    - the charter is not up for debate until we complete our work

This is what I understand, and this is what I wait for.

>    - the charter imposes specific requirements on what we deliver

True. And I think that some of these requirements cannot be delivered with 
the current doctrine of the draft. The most obvious one is its simplicity 
and clarity. It is likely that a 140000 characters text is more complex 
than a 25000 one. I looked very carefully (but I may have missed them?) for 
an Internet context definition of the terms used in the document such as 
"language", "script", "region", "variant" detailing their underlying concepts.

The charter says "It is also expected to provide mechanisms to support the 
evolution of the underlying ISO standards": each time I have alluded to 
this consistency, to this evolution, to its rules, to its expected near 
terms achievements, etc. this has been labeled as "out of context", etc. 
etc. All of them are ruled by ISO 11179 you  also ruled as out of context.

>    - we need to ensure that what we produces addresses all the
>      mandatory requirements imposed by our charter

Right. This is why I patiently wait for this group to achieve its current 
work, then identifies the mandatory requirements imposed by the charter, 
then verifies if these requirements are satisfied. I only suggest that we 
could have saved a lot of time in identifying the mandatory requirements 
first, because the issue is complex and it is unlikely that anyone can come 
up with a good response without this preparatory identification.

This is why myself, before venturing in writing a Draft, I want to wait for 
the outcomes of this common identification. To be surer I read it correctly.

>If you read anything more into my use of the phrase "thorny questions" on
>April 7, you are mistaken.  You have been corrected on this point repeatedly,
>but have proven incorrigible.

I do not read anything more, and I fully agree with your use of the term 
"thorny".

You are so wary because I just see the proposed draft cannot fly in the 
real world, that you imagine too much. Please stop inventing a supposed 
second, third or whatever degree in my mails. When I read something in RFCs 
and in the Charter about common sense issues and I see this WG 
painstakingly wanting to standardise a patch, what do you want me to do? To 
be disloyal? to keep real world considerations outside of the WG as most 
do? To leave you produce another "IDN solution"?

I certainly have no problem with that!

>...
> > I do not really care as I have no dispute with you (except when you talk of
> > "end users") but can you please quote the URL of this "insult" ?
>...
>http://www1.ietf.org/mail-archive/web/ltru/current/msg02372.html
>is a recent example of what I would consider an insulting post.

I read and reread and reread that text to try to find what can be insulting 
in a meeting report, which lists decisions taken by an independent  team. 
They illustrate the way an internet experimented and 
multinational/multilingual may receive your positions.

NB1. In reading and rereading I found a self correcting typo, I apologise 
for (is this the insult?). Addison's "troll" had been read as "droll". I 
corrected that, told them that Addison mail did _not_ change his text which 
was what was only to be considered, and thanked them to accept it.

NB2. the question was to Peter.

Otherwise, I invited you all for a drink. I know this is a huge risk of 
bias for the work of this WG. But I do not think it is insulting?

I just wait for the announced day this WG will start working on the 
identification of its Charter requirements.
jfc





_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru