Modification Request: dsb et al. (Suppress-Script: Latn)

[Peter Constable]

Of course he's entitled to a personal opinion. But when, after three weeks have passed during which he hasn't expressed a personal opinion, he gets asked an administrative question, he should expect that his response will be perceived not as a personal opinion but as an ex-officio statement.


Peter


> -----Original Message-----
> From: Debbie Garside [mailto:debbie at ictmarketing.co.uk]
> Sent: Tuesday, October 23, 2007 1:26 AM
> To: Peter Constable; 'Michael Everson'; 'IETF Languages Discussion'
> Subject: RE: Modification Request: dsb et al. (Suppress-Script: Latn)
>
> I believe Michael is entitled to a personal opinion.  I also believe
> Michael
> said " Again, if people want these registered, I will not disapprove."
>
> Best regards
>
> Debbie
>
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no
> > [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of
> > Peter Constable
> > Sent: 22 October 2007 17:24
> > To: Michael Everson; IETF Languages Discussion
> > Subject: RE: Modification Request: dsb et al. (Suppress-Script: Latn)
> >
> > Procedural objection:
> >
> > As LSTR, your job is to process requests, not to second-guess
> > the process. If there are concerns about the request raised
> > during the discussion, then you can say you will not approve
> > it as there is not consensus. But IMO *this* is not the place
> > for you to discuss whether there's a practical need. If it's
> > requested and nobody objects, you register it. If there is a
> > question of appropriateness, that is an objection that would
> > get raised, and you make a decision not to register on that
> > basis. But somebody, including the LSTR, saying they don't
> > have a need is not a valid basis for blocking the request.
> >
> >
> > Peter
> >
> >
> >
> > > -----Original Message-----
> > > From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-
> > > bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Michael Everson
> > > Sent: Sunday, October 21, 2007 2:10 AM
> > > To: IETF Languages Discussion
> > > Subject: Re: Modification Request: dsb et al.
> > (Suppress-Script: Latn)
> > >
> > > At 18:12 -0700 2007-10-20, Doug Ewell wrote:
> > > >It's been almost three weeks since Frank Ellermann
> > submitted his list
> > > >of Suppress-Script requests, so I think some sort of
> > resolution needs
> > > >to be decided upon, and announced to the list.
> > >
> > > I am sure that Frisian uses Latin, which is the opinion I
> > as reviewer
> > > can offer. I don't really care whether it has a Suppress Script or
> > > not. I certainly don't see a NEED for it (who is writing Frisian in
> > > anything else?) and the requesst for registration seems
> > formal rather
> > > than practical. Some people are saying that the Suppress Script is
> > > badly designed. If you all want the requests processed, say
> > so. If you
> > > think this is an LTRU matter, say so.
> > > --
> > > Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> > _______________________________________________
> > Ietf-languages mailing list
> > Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> > http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>