Language Tag Reviewer

Scott Hollenbeck sah at
Mon Feb 20 17:12:24 CET 2006

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Michael Everson [mailto:everson at] 
> Sent: Monday, February 20, 2006 10:49 AM
> To: Scott Hollenbeck; 'IETF Languages Discussion'
> Cc: hardie at
> Subject: RE: Language Tag Reviewer
> At 05:58 -0500 2006-02-20, Scott Hollenbeck wrote:
> >Sorry, but I don't think it's unreasonable to expect that an 
> IESG-appointed
> >expert should be paying attention to the ongoing work that 
> describes the
> >expert's role.
> You may not think so, but the revision of this RFC has been such a 
> horror and a nightmare and I told EVERYONE that I was not going to 
> pay any attention to the revision until it was done.
> This does NOT mean that it shouldn't have been obvious to people that 
> if the language tag reviewer's role were being changed to add 
> additional pointless administrative duties, that they might have 
> mentioned it to the existing reviewer before springing it on him as 
> you did.
> (If you make me responsible for running the discussion list, I 
> *promise* to summarily ban trouble-makers without attention to the 
> arcane rules which have kept us forced to put up with known 
> trouble-maker for over a year.)
> >Note, too, that I did send a public request for you to get 
> in touch on the
> >ietf-languages list.  You didn't reply to that message.
> No, Scott. I didn't. On 17 February when you sent that to the list, I 
> was in the Union of Myanmar where POP3 access to my mail was illegal. 
> I was working hard there on solutions the the problems they have been 
> having with the Unicode encoding for their national script, as well 
> as gathering data on about 70 characters needed to add to the Unicode 
> Standard to support minority languages in that country. I am sorry 
> that this was inconvenient for your telephone meeting. :-/

This is the last I'm going to say on the matter since we clearly are
approaching the IESG's responsibility of appointing a language tag reviewer
from very different perspectives.

Michael, my notes to you were intended to be EXACTLY the kind of "mention"
that you describe above.  For whatever reason, you have chosen to interpret
them as some sort of surprise.  I respect the fact that you're busy and
working with operational constraints, but I get the distinct impression that
you won't extend the same respect to others.

I will ask Ted to shepherd this issue through IESG evaluation.


More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list