BCP47 Appeals process

Mark Davis mark at macchiato.com
Wed Sep 17 11:49:33 CEST 2008

As you know, according to the stated process in the procedures, after 2
weeks of receiving any proposal, you need to formally accept or reject the
proposal or give a 2 week extension. I understand that you may be traveling,
and of course we need to make reasonable allowances for that, but the
requirements of the position that you took on require reasonably timely
responses, and clear communication of the status of each proposal.
For example, wadegile was initially proposed 7 weeks ago on July 30, then
modified twice in response to issues raised on the list. The last was on Aug
26. You needed to issue a formal acceptance, rejection, or 2 week extension
by Sept 9th.

   - You have a message of Aug 26 that seems to approve both wadegile and
   - You have a message of Sep 9 that seems to reject wadegile.

So it is unclear what is going on. Could you please state exactly what the
formal status is of each of the three proposed registrations? For rejections
you should give examples of what would "change your vote to 'yes'" so that
we can have a clearer discussion.

For the future, for clarity I would recommend distinguishing those messages
on the list where you are speaking formally in your official capacity by
adopting some more formulaic language in your message, something like:

The proposed registration for wadegile presented on Aug 26 is REJECTED.

The reasons are that: ...

To change the status to ACCEPTED, you could submit a modified proposal with
the following changes: ...


On Wed, Sep 17, 2008 at 10:08 AM, Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>wrote:

> On 17 Sep 2008, at 07:06, Mark Davis wrote:
> As the Language Reviewer for BCP 47, you required to take actions in
> accordance with the specifications in BCP 47. Please do so with the three
> long-overdue language subtag registration forms, with detailed grounds for
> rejection if you are rejecting, so that I can then begin the appeals
> process.
> And right now I happen to be travelling, and it is not easy to communicate;
> previously when I was not travelling you were busy and we did not hear from
> you frequently. You may remember that at the outset I asked you questions
> which weren't answered at the time. Have a heart, please.
> "Long overdue" is a bit overstated, I think. Anyway see other threads.
> Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
> http://www.alvestrand.no/mailman/listinfo/ietf-languages
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20080917/7e23f68f/attachment.htm 

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list