Language Subtag Reviewer Appointment
sah at 428cobrajet.net
Tue Feb 21 19:44:30 CET 2006
Nothing I wrote below casts aspersions on you. I provided statements of
fact that the LTRU working group must consider as they decide what to do
with the document they produced.
Whether you like it or not, this is how the IETF works. I am not going to
put myself or the IESG in jeopardy to suit your preferences.
Thank you for sharing your opinion.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Everson [mailto:everson at evertype.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, February 21, 2006 1:19 PM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck; 'LTRU Working Group'
> Cc: 'Ted Hardie'; IETF Languages Discussion
> Subject: Re: Language Subtag Reviewer Appointment
> At 08:00 -0500 2006-02-21, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
> >Mr. Everson has stated that he is willing to review language
> tags, but he is
> >unwilling to moderate or maintain the ietf-languages list.
> Because that function is not something I have ever done, nor is it
> something that should have been added to the reviewer's
> responsibilities. And no one ever bothered to ask me my opinion of
> this until the draft was "approved". This is NOT my fault.
> >An Area Director can not unilaterally change an approved
> >Ted and I are not willing to appoint a reviewer who is not willing to
> >perform the duties described in the document.
> If you people are more concerned about your rules and processes than
> in the actual content of the work, then there are problems indeed
> with your organization. I am not willing to take on the responsiblity
> to manage an IESG-rule-bound list precisely because of all the crap
> we have had to put up with Mr Morfin. It is YOUR process that is
> broken, Mr Hollenbeck, and it is rather nasty of you to be
> high-handed about not being willing to appoint me to do a job I have
> been doing for years because I am not willing to take on additional
> responsibilities that no one informed me about until it was already
> set in stone. I assure you I would have made my views clear then.
> Don't try to make *me* the bad-guy here.
> >1. Revise the document, which will mean pulling it out of
> the RFC Editor
> >queue and starting a new last call and IESG approval process. I am
> >suggesting that a new last call etc. is required because
> this document was
> >approved for publication as a Best Current Practice (BCP)
> document, and
> >changing one of the practices is not a trivial matter.
> This *is* a trivial matter, and your "last call" should state
> explicitly that the ONLY thing on the table up for approval is the
> one or two sentences it will take to correct the error in
> responsibility assignment which exists in the document. This is NOT a
> large technical change. It is administrative, and should be
> fast-tracked. Your organization should do this in order to meet the
> urgent market need for this RFC.
> >2. Leave the document alone and appoint a reviewer who is willing to
> >delegate list management duties. There has been some debate
> over whether or
> >not the reviewer has the authority to delegate
> administrative tasks, but I
> >believe that there are a number of precedents in place to
> support such a
> I do not want to make a delegation choice either. Why should I -- or
> any language tag reviewer -- be considered competent to do this? This
> is not what a reviewer is chosen for. You need to fix the document,
> which conflates responsibilities in ways which do not make any sense
> at all.
> That's my opinion.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
More information about the Ietf-languages