Message-Id: <6.2.3.4.2.20050906114032.04987180@mail.afrac.org>
Date: Tue, 06 Sep 2005 12:13:13 +0200
To: "Randy Presuhn" <randy_presuhn@mindspring.com>,
	"LTRU Working Group" <ltru@ietf.org>
From: r&d afrac <rd@afrac.org>
Subject: Re: [Ltru] Re: [psg.com #1108]  IETF/LC Recall of the LSR (gen-art 2)
In-Reply-To: <006601c5b28f$12c51320$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
References: <634978A7DF025A40BFEF33EB191E13BC0CA912C3@irvmbxw01.quest.com>
	<20050831211150.GN14448@NYCMJCOWA2>
	<006601c5b28f$12c51320$7f1afea9@oemcomputer>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
Cc: 
Precedence: list
Sender: ltru-bounces@ietf.org
Errors-To: ltru-bounces@ietf.org

The credibility of this Draft is based upon the credibility of this 
reviewer, of the associated mailing list and the ability for anyone 
to register langtags. This is not insured by the Draft.

1. there should not be a single reviewer, but a multi-competence 
committee with voted suggestions to IANA. How someone can have enough 
typographer, publisher, developer, networker expertise to be accepted 
as an authoritative reference by his peers, world-wide? For example, 
the current single person in charge made clear enough that he did not 
and did not wanted to know about software development. This only 
underlines the misunderstanding of the Draft, being undefined 
language oriented instead of real life multilingual network oriented. 
ISO/TC37 vs IETF.

The reviewers should be elected (or confirmed) by the members of the 
mailing list and the IANA. To make sure we do not face a situation 
like today, the reviewers should be designated for one year and 
confirmed. This would give them more authority and decrease the risks 
of conflicts.

2. the same remark applied on modes.

3. as long as the list will stay an ietf-languages@alvestrand.no it 
will continue underlining an abnormal situation. If it becomes a 
languages@iana.org list documented in the welcome page of 
http://languages.inia.org the situation will change.

But I suppose that many of you have more experience than me in 
writing by-laws, administering organisations, dealing with opposing 
government officials ...

jfc




At 05:00 06/09/2005, Randy Presuhn wrote:
>Hi -
>
>As a technical contributor...
>
> > From: "John.Cowan" <jcowan@reutershealth.com>
> > To: "Addison Phillips" <addison.phillips@quest.com>
> > Cc: "Elwyn Davies" <elwynd@dial.pipex.com>; "LTRU Working Group" 
> <ltru@ietf.org>
> > Sent: Wednesday, August 31, 2005 2:11 PM
> > Subject: Re: [Ltru] Recall of the LSR (gen-art #2)
>...
> > The above strategy seems right to me.  The IESG giveth and the IESG taketh
> > away, and the appeal is unto them.
>...
>
>So, to the text already proposed for issue "[psg.com #1110] IETF/LC define
>the LSR (gen-art 4)", where the propoasal currently says
>
>"The Language Subtag Reviewer is appointed by the IESG"
>
>in order to address this comment, I suggest ammending that text to read
>something like:
>
>"The Language Subtag Reviewer is appointed by the IESG for
>an indefinite term, subject to removal or replacement at the IESG's
>discretion,"
>
>Randy
>
>
>
>
>_______________________________________________
>Ltru mailing list
>Ltru@ietf.org
>https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru


_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
Ltru@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru