Here's what I have to say aboutthat?

Tex Texin tex at
Mon May 26 17:39:19 CEST 2003

Can we get a reference for the edberg paper before we take a vote?

Also taking a vote without a clear statement of what is being voted on, will
just make more noise.
You might want to check for agreement on the individual items.
But I suspect this will just trigger a restatement of many things that have
been said already.

I respect Michael's concerns for not being too hasty. I would worry less about
consensus and focus on airing exactly which parts of the proposal are at
issue. Michael, are there any parts you yourself agree with? Any you disagree
with?  It might help to split out the parts, and perhaps we can move forward
on pieces if you and others substantially agree, and have rational discussion
on the areas of concern that remain.

Sorry, if this puts you on the spot Michael, but you are kind of there


Jon Hanna wrote:
> > Oh joy. We don't have consensus on the syntax for these tags either.
> Well to take my sub-objection to the syntax in addition to my objection to
> the whole idea of script tags in 3066 is rather unfair.
> Can we have a quick show of hands now, not a vote per se, but can we
> determine just how far we are from consensus?
> _______________________________________________
> Ietf-languages mailing list
> Ietf-languages at

Tex Texin   cell: +1 781 789 1898   mailto:Tex at
Xen Master                
Making e-Business Work Around the World

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list