Message-Id: <6.1.2.0.2.20050218173025.0cb505d0@mail.jefsey.com>
Date: Fri, 18 Feb 2005 18:14:03 +0100
To: Tex Texin <tex@xencraft.com>
From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <jefsey@jefsey.com>
In-Reply-To: <42161738.B480ABAD@xencraft.com>
References: <F8ACB1B494D9734783AAB114D0CE68FE05183F54@RED-MSG-52.redmond.corp.microsof
	t.com> <p06110411be3b87e152c0@[10.0.1.2]>
	<6.1.2.0.2.20050218134506.047eb530@mail.jefsey.com>
	<42161738.B480ABAD@xencraft.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: ietf-languages@iana.org
Subject: Re: LANGUAGE TAG REGISTRATION FORM: mn-Mong-CN
Precedence: list
Sender: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no
Errors-To: ietf-languages-bounces@alvestrand.no

Dear Tex,
I do not think I have tried to do anything to justify your own "lambast". I 
have not accused Mr. Everson of what you say. Mr. Everson has been 
designated for an impossible task by the IESG in a confused context. To the 
contrary, I have presented by apologies to Mr. Everson because I was wrong 
in accusing him, because I supposed he had the culture his IESG assigned 
position requires.

I underline that Mr. Everson is a brilliant linguist, what I believe to be 
true. I think I am pretty fair, loyal and neutral after the way Mr. Everson 
treated me. We are not carrying a petty-chief fight, we are trying to do a 
good job.

I therefore resent your mail, which probably results from a too fast 
reading. I purposely sent it to the list with comments, instead to Bcc it, 
so readers who laughed in his sleeve can also read the responses. We are 
here, as you say, in the need of a consensual effort over languages which 
is a very disputed and a primary WSIS issue, making Mr. Everson very 
disputed. The flaw in the current process is that this consensus is 
discussed among a small group of linguists (as Mr. Everson claims only to 
be and this list also to be). It is urgent to motivate all the concerned 
people by this consensus so they can join it. And I agree that these people 
are not much motivated because, if they see the harm this group can do, 
they do not see what it is good for.

I do not think this is the fault of this group, as I do not think it is Mr. 
Everson's fault: this is the fault of the IESG not to have Mr. Everson 
assisted by a Network/IETF specialist as per the normal Internet standard 
process and to have accepted that a IANA Registrar function be performed 
outside of an IETF WG. This is why we need more people, from different 
origins, to assist Mr. Everson - what is the purpose of this list. But I 
think it is the fault of Mr. Everson and the fault of this group not to 
want to understand and respect the Internet standard process which calls in 
such circumstances for IAB guidance and to propose IESG a charter, and not 
to have paid attention enough to its reach out process. This is why I give 
the main lines of this charter as I see it: you are welcome to discuss 
them. But not as a ISO linguist, as an IETF Member.

I have no personal agenda in this. Except that the Internet standard 
process rules are used and respected, by this group which ignores them and 
by IESG which has not assigned an IAD to this effort nor given it the 
normal publicity the matter deserves. These rules have made the IETF 
survive for nearly 20 years and warranted the development of the Internet. 
If these rules are respected (and should the Draft have been accepted in 
its 08.txt version I would have appealed on that very ground) and 
contradict my positions, I will obviously respect them.

Reread my text as an outsider will read it. I also suggest you to read RFC 
3869 to see how IAB (not) considers the Multilingual Internet. This was the 
mission of this list as the only one involved to serve as a reminder. This 
list being outside the IETF, Mr. Everson is the only formal entry point of 
Multilingualism in the IAB/IESG/IETF structure as having been designated by 
the IESG.
Kindly.
jfc


At 17:26 18/02/2005, Tex Texin wrote:
>JFC,
>
>This is really quite uncalled for. You took a comment that Michael
>Everson made in the context of specific wording that was used in an
>email, and tried to turn it into something with a different meaning
>which most everyone on this list recognizes to be completely untrue. Mr.
>Everson does an excellent job thank you.
>
>And as both the list and process looks for consensus, your accusations
>of uninformed control by Mr. Everson and the surrounding lambasts of him
>and the IETF are false and uncalled for.
>
>If you are angry because you haven't been able to articulate compelling
>arguments for your point of view and persuade others to agree and
>support your viewpoint, then please don't resort to name calling or
>taking it out on Michael or anyone else here.
>
>tex
>_______________________________________________
>Ietf-languages mailing list
>Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
>http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages

_______________________________________________
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages@alvestrand.no
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages