Timetable for action: May 31 is suggested

[Tex Texin]

Peter_Constable at sil.org wrote:
> 
> Tex Texin wrote on 05/27/2003 10:40:29 AM:
> 
> > c) actually es-americas wasn't formally rejected as much as the
> discussion was
> > allowed to die out (after much more than 2 weeks if I recall correctly)
> and
> > its proponents gave up.
> 
> After the Reviewer made it clear repeatedly that he had no intention of
> approving this.

Yes. A formal rejection with appropriate explanation as to why, would help
clarify what can and cannot be registered.


> > d) To my mind, the fact that es-americas was not accepted is indicative
> of why
> > the current approach is faulty and a new framework should be adopted.
 
> It's been my impression that this RFC should be guided by purely linguistic
> standards, but ultimately exists to serve the needs of IT.

Would be nice.

 
> > e) wedging scripts into languages is kind of a hack. Having it will help
> some
> > applications and likely be confusing for others.
> 
> I think that's overstated. As you know, I wrote a paper over a year ago
> looking at a coherent conceptual model of ontological categories that
> combine both language proper and also written expression of language. There
> are issues inherent to language (and writing) as a phenomenon that mean
> that a complete system based on explicit and consistently applied
> principles is a bit of a pipe dream -- it's always going to have messy
> bits; but I attempted in that paper to suggest that we can come up with a
> model that can be applied with *enough* consistency and principled
> underpinnings to be workable and practical. Peter Edberg felt I had
> succeded in doing that, and built on what I had done to try to move us
> closer to actually implementing a system by extending RFC 3066.

OK, but you are referring to an essentially private discussion since more of
us have not seen Edberg's document.

I used the term hack because there is some handwaving around how the proposed
tags fit into the larger scheme.
I can agree with you about the pipe dream. The fact an elegant solution
doesn't exist doesn't make a hack less of a hack, to my mind.
Most of us agree it's the best we can do.


> 
> > this discussion could take a few more weeks
> > without incurring major harm to the industry and the proponents could be
> a bit
> > more patient. At the same time, there perhaps shouldn't be delay for
> delays
> > sake, and if there are legitimate objections to consider, they need to be
> > articulated. If it will take time to formulate those objections, we
> perhaps
> > need an estimate of how long it would take. So for example, and not to
> put
> > words in his mouth, if Michael or others need time to consider the
> proposal
> > and the 2 week schedule is not sufficient, it would not be unreasonable
> to say
> > this issue will take n weeks, to give time to all parties to respond.
> > At least then, the clamoring for appeal etc. might die down and we could
> just
> > focus on the proposal, knowing at the end of the period a decision would
> > result.
> 
> IMO, Michael should act one way or another: either approve Mark's requests
> (with all -- I think -- of the individuals from whom he had explicitly
> asked for nods of the head having done so); or he should explicitly reject
> Mark's request and explain what plan of action he wants to see pursued. I
> can understand John, Mark, Addison and others being frustrated by the
> current limbo.

ok. I offered a 3rd course, which is essentially to have a plan of action
without rejecting it.
Or at least that's what I thought would occur during the period of
consideration, as well as having an end date so people would see it wasn't an
interminable period.

I thought some of the frustration was due to unvoiced objections and the
open-endedness. 

tex