Duplicate Busters: Survey #2

[Doug Ewell]

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> An alleged WG rough consensus in conflict with say RFC 1591
> or 2026 would be not too impressing, but this doesn't affect
> the NCR issue (my POV, somebody saying DOOM could disagree).

Regarding RFC 1591:
Neither LTRU nor ietf-languages deals with domain names, which are a 
separate application of ISO 3166 from language tags, and neither IANA 
nor ICANN has been asked to decide "what is a country" for language-tag 
purposes.  Therefore, there is no conflict with the informative RFC 1591 
or 3071.

Regarding RFC 2026:
Either a post sent to the IETF mailing list (on which Frank is an active 
participant), a direct mail to the IESG leadership, or a formal appeal 
would be a better forum for charging LTRU with process violation that 
this advisory list.

I hope we do not see a return to the working environment of two to three 
years ago, where a certain poster expressed his disagreement with LTRU 
WG decisions by making allegations of process abuse, mixed with threats 
of procedural and/or legal action.

>> He's a democratic editor too.
>
> That was not my impression wrt the disputed territory codes,
> and technical decisions based on voting could be a nightmare.

While not a strict count of yeas and nays, "rough consensus" does tend 
to imply that barring some major technical conflict, the will of the 
majority trumps the will of the minority.  I disagreed with the decision 
to add ISO 3166 exceptionally reserved codes as subtags, but I was in 
the minority, and there was no major technical conflict.  You win some, 
you lose some.

--
Doug Ewell  *  Thornton, Colorado, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14
http://www.ewellic.org
http://www1.ietf.org/html.charters/ltru-charter.html
http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages  ˆ