[Ltru] RE: Language Subtag Reviewer Appointment
debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk
Tue Feb 21 21:55:28 CET 2006
Which basically means that I support option 2 with the added bit about
updating job specs when RFC3066ter comes along :-)
PS Slip of the finger I should have written "impending publication of ISO
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk]
> Sent: 21 February 2006 19:14
> To: 'Scott Hollenbeck'; 'Michael Everson'; 'LTRU Working Group'
> Cc: 'IETF Languages Discussion'
> Subject: RE: [Ltru] RE: Language Subtag Reviewer Appointment
> Gentlemen Please... !!!
> I propose a fifth option.
> I think we would all agree that it is in the majority's interest to allow
> the draft to proceed as is.
> Therefore, I propose that Michael Everson be appointed as Language Subtag
> Reviewer with all that that position entails.
> I propose that Michael accept the position and that he propose to the
> IETF/LTRU that whilst he is happy to accept the position of Language
> Reviewer the constraints on his time do not allow for him to also take up
> the duties as List Moderator.
> Michael can further propose to this list and the LTRU that he is allowed
> designate an experienced person to deputise for him in this aspect of the
> role and that the person he would like to deputise is Harald (assuming he
> OK with this).
> The IETF/LTRU group are advised by Scott that there is precedent for this
> and the proposal is put to the list. The list membership approve on the
> basis that the two positions are separated when RFC3066ter comes along (in
> the not too distant future given the impending publication of ISO 639-6).
> Job Done!
> Best wishes
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Scott Hollenbeck [mailto:sah at 428cobrajet.net]
> > Sent: 21 February 2006 18:45
> > To: 'Michael Everson'; 'LTRU Working Group'
> > Cc: 'IETF Languages Discussion'
> > Subject: [Ltru] RE: Language Subtag Reviewer Appointment
> > Mr. Everson,
> > 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
> > put myself or the IESG in jeopardy to suit your preferences.
> > Thank you for sharing your opinion.
> > -Scott-
> > > -----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
> > > Internet-Draft.
> > > >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
> > > >decision.
> > >
> > > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ltru mailing list
> > Ltru at ietf.org
> > https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru
> Ltru mailing list
> Ltru at ietf.org
More information about the Ietf-languages