Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050402115512.032d5e30@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 02:55:04 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] is there some wiskey in the jar
In-Reply-To: <002901c5374d$7f2b97e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <4A7C6FA2AB31194E80E13FE585F6A21292A1CE@EVS-EC1-NODE1.surrey.ac.uk>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050331201305.042e0c60@mail.jefsey.com>
	<20050331201010.GA6550@skunk.reutershealth.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050401103458.042e0140@mail.jefsey.com>
	<20050402014946.GA16332@skunk.reutershealth.com>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050402040415.03b58530@mail.jefsey.com>
	<002901c5374d$7f2b97e0$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ltru@ietf.org
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@lists.ietf.org

On 08:30 02/04/2005, Randy Presuhn said:
>Hi -
>Please identify the specific text you want changed.

Dear Randy,
I indicated that I will present a review and a Draft. AP & MD documented it 
took them a full year's work to produce their Draft which does not consider 
others' needs. Allow us time enough to do something serious. I indicated: 
before mid-April.

>(I assume you meant something like "Personal taste should not be reflected 
>in international standards."

I mean gustos (spa) or gustoes (eng) as the personal taste and the artistic 
enjoyment of John. I acknowledge there John has a literary culture to be 
respected. And remind this culture is not unique, in ISO and in real world: 
even if it is in the IETF for historic and pragmatic reason.

>  (I've never observed this to be true in practice.))

Neither did I. But I also observed that most of the international standard 
blockages and delays result from the need of compromise on that very 
matter. This is why the best way to block the Draft I am advised, is to 
leave it the way it is.

>I see no contradiction.  The permeability of the boundaries in question is 
>completely independent of the extent to which spelling has been standardized.

We talked of meanings and styles. Anyway the point is that standard should 
address concepts, not languages specifics. Lacks of a language cannot be a 
motive not to consider issues risen by others.

>Everyone: if you want your postings to be taken seriously, please identify 
>the specific changes needed to address your concerns.

Sorry, but before proposing changes (or a new approach) we try first to 
understand what are the needs the Draft tries to address. This is why I 
take everyone's postings very seriously and I thank everyone for their 
contribution, in particular Frank, Thomas, Ira, L.Gillam, Debbie, Doug and 
John. This is one of the ways I try to understand what are the needs the 
Draft tries to address.

The other way is to call for help betters than me. I made a PDF of the 
Draft and send it around. No one yet said "I read it, I understand it, I 
support it". Most say "I do not understand what they want, it does not 
really make sense". A few say "their charter is not bad, may be should they 
read it". The remaining says: "Drop the issue. It will never fly, we will 
oppose: our prerequisites are not even considered".

I must say I am quite dismayed by these reponses (which call for a real 
effort to obtain). Obviously no one is really excited about improving RFC 
3066 which just middly does not work in a way most are happy with.
jfc



_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru