Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050414004401.02df77d0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Thu, 14 Apr 2005 01:46:46 +0200
To: "Doug Ewell" <dewell@adelphia.net>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #882] registry should copy non-English
	fields from ISO documents
In-Reply-To: <003101c5403d$1e0bce00$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
References: <20050413142051.UDNA2128.mta1.adelphia.net@megatron.ietf.org>
	<003101c5403d$1e0bce00$030aa8c0@DEWELL>
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 17:26 13/04/2005, Doug Ewell wrote:
>JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:
>
> > 2. mixed feelings among English culture Members, where confusion
> > results from the bundling of various questions in a single one "do you
> > support Jefsey's non detailed provision".
>
>Speaking only for myself, I wasn't confused at all.  Randy's blanket
>term, "Jefsey's provisos," was sufficiently vague that I had to actually
>go back and read the post(s) in question, which I had skimmed over
>before.  After reading them, I clearly understood Jefsey's various
>suggestions, and was confident of my opposition to them.

you increase the problem rather than clarifiy it. What you oppose is my 
bundled personal positions (plural). Not different questions (each 
singular). But may be this is a normal way of thinking in this group, since 
the main problem it faces is of same nature: the bundling of XML parameters.

>Partitioning the group into "French culture Members" and "English culture 
>Members"

See below.

>and pitting the two against each other is not how I thought consensus was 
>built within Working Groups, but I could easily be wrong here.

I feel the term "pitting" out of context.

>  I don't have 27 years of Internet experience to draw on.

True. But this experience shown me that intelligence may replace it 
advantageously.

BTW these different comments lead to realise how much one of the things 
which suprises non-English culture people on this kind of lists is the 
rudeness of people who are most probably very polite in normal life. I 
suppose this is part of the consensus undercovering in these IETF related 
Working Groups?


Some IETF participants make a very common error using the formula 
"consensus building", which by essence has no meaning. This may result from 
the different motivations of people in participating in the IETF 
interestingly discussed on the main list rigth now. This seems to actually 
mean "to build a proposition" that "rough consensus rules" will permit to 
impose to the WG to obtain the publication of a document. By essence this 
is a Pyrhus victory, and the main reason why every RFC do not make a standard.

By nature a consensus is something which pre-exists, otherwise it is a 
compromise or a trap. The difficulty is to discover it as it is hidden 
behind many conditions ("we are in agreement if you we agree on something 
else before" - governing by consensus is to make fulfil these condition so 
the consensus may survive). The reason why we need consensuses is it is the 
best hope we have that what is true in a WG will also be true in the real 
world. The reason why we are not interested in compromise, votes, 
positions, etc. is that they only concern the group which discusses them 
and not the real world.

Here we have two consensuses (which is a normal possibility). One is clear 
and supported by determined and able people (the position of this WG will 
not affect the real world deployment and the plans we work on). The other 
is confuse and contradictory (it makes the registry empty since ISO 639-3 
uses reference names which by essence are not of a language, therefore not 
English. And even if you twisted the text of the  "consensus" in accepting 
ISO 639-3 reference names of English origin, the autonyms should stay 
blocked .... these people refusing "1000" languages, forgetting that ISO 
639-3 uses probably more than 1000 languages ...

So, we can only say from this that two opposing consensus emerged. These 
two consensus seem to be supported (a) by what seems to be an extended 
anglo-saxon culture group, (b) by a non-extended-anglo-saxon culture. The 
limited number of participants in (b) does not make it clear if that 
culture is limited to one single individual, extended to the cultures of 
the various authoritative entities he is related to. The response will be 
possibly observed during the Last Call, etc. , the IANA implementation and 
the MRP (market real practices).

jfc
















>-Doug Ewell
>  Fullerton, California
>  http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@lists.ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@lists.ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru