recently-approved tags

[Peter Constable]

> From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of JFC (Jefsey) Morfin


> >I received your mail on the IETF language tags list and I responded
to it
> >there. Perhaps you could just refrain from posting here at all.
> 
> I am afraid you have to chose. Either this list is a private list,
which
> might justify your suggestion. Either it is a IANA list and your
suggestion
> is innapropriate. Or it is an IETF list (but to my knowledge no one
ever
> suggested it) and your suggestion is a violation of the IETF rules.

We all know it is a public list, but it *is* an IETF list, and subject
to IETF rules. AFAICT, it does not violate any IETF rule to suggest that
someone refrain from posting to the list. In fact, we well know that
there are IETF procedures by which someone can be kept from posting to
the list. Michael isn't always the most tactful in email interchanges,
but I don't think I've seen him step beyond the degree to which he has
been provoked.

Michael complained about a remark you made on this list (in English).
Your decidedly unhelpful and response was 

<quote>
Michael, my mail was copied to the AFRAC list. This remark (in French)
concerned some members of the AFRAC mailing list we call this way. But
if you think it applies to others ... after all, some of us who have
done some work in some areas would certainly hate contradicting you.
</quote>

It is no defence to contend that your comment was intended for members
of some other list which you blindly copied -- for anyone on *this*
list, every appearance was that you were referring to activity on *this*
list, hence making your remarks about members of *this* list.


> To my understanding however the present list has never been discussed
as
> being an IETF list. However considering the idea, it could be good
one:
> this list could be a permanent IETF WG, publishing regular (yearly)
updates
> as RFC maintained through regular Drafts. This could actually solve a
lot
> of IANA related issues, since the Drafts and RFCs are a very well
> established system.

This list has functioned reasonably and sufficiently well for many
years, serving a particular purpose that is well defined in an IETF
document. Your suggestion to change significantly the purpose of this
list is unhelpful; your repeated suggestions for the same are becoming
obstructionist. 



Peter Constable