Appeal to ISO 639 RA in support of Elfdalian
Doug Ewell
doug at ewellic.org
Sat Apr 23 18:27:36 CEST 2016
Peter Constable wrote:
> [...] I find the RA to have as open a process as I've seen in anything
> comparable regarding proposals, comments on those proposals, and
> decisions: everything is publicly documented and far more publicly
> visible than the ISO 3166 maintenance process, or the ISO 15924
> maintenance process, or the Unicode / ISO 10646 process, or even the
> ietf-languages process.
I did not object that the 639-3 process was not open enough. I would say
the reasons given for rejection were worded in a hand-waving manner,
avoiding mention of the fact that Sweden's government objected to the
request and that apparently superseded all the linguistic arguments. But
that's not a complaint against the openness of the process; at least the
objection letters were attached to the rejection document.
With that said, I can't see how the 639-3 process can be considered "far
more publicly visible than [...] even the ietf-languages process."
Everything about the ietf-languages process, all of the arguments pro
and con, are handled on a public mailing list with a public web archive.
All decisions are made on the list, not in meeting rooms. I don't know
how you can get more open than that.
--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
More information about the Ietf-languages
mailing list