REQUEST for registration of variant subtag 'grabar'

Michael Everson everson at
Tue Sep 26 01:11:43 CEST 2006

I would like to request that the posting privileges of this 
participant, who has engaged in an ad-hominem attack on Peter 
Constable, be suspended irrevocably.

At 00:05 +0200 2006-09-26, JFC Morfin wrote:
>At 17:56 25/09/2006, Peter Constable wrote:
>  >It's probably relevant to point out that Mr. Morfin asked me offline
>  >to add Classical Armenian to the code table for 639-3. That was a
>  >direct request to me as editor, not via the RA, and I told him that
>  >I could not take unilateral action of that sort but that he needed
>  >to submit his request to the JAC.
>  >
>  >His response revealed that he was not pursuing this because of an
>  >immediate user need but rather was pursuing this with an ulterior agenda:
>  >
>  >This list should not allow itself to be manipulated for such
>  >ulterior purposes.
>Dear Peter,
>I think we totally agree. This is why you should not try to
>manipulate the list in quoting private mails, and when you do it in
>not quoting the whole mail. In particular the "Because ..." part.
>To the countrary of what you say my proposition was not because of a
>lack of "immediate user need" (my job is not to correct the bugs in
>your ISO 639-3) but because of an immediate credibility need of ISO
>639-3 and IETF in front of users.
>What is choking is that Peter and Michael did not understand, know,
>realise why this is a BIG bug. Something they should obviously have
>known as language experts - what I am not - and that lay people like
>me and others with an average historic knowledge and cultural
>background do know and are chocked by. Peter today's mail is an
>additional concern, since Peter tries to manipulate the list against
>common culture and needed usage.
>I could understand Peter ignored the "Grabar" name. I am very
>surprised that he did not know about its history. I am puzzled that
>after having been reminded about it, he tries to hide his ignorance
>and use it at his own advantage. The maintainer of ISO 639-3 is SIL.
>I do respect their integrity and competence. I understand why their
>background permitted they overlooked Grabar. The procedures they
>established will certainly help them correcting that mistake without
>me or Venezian Monks to spend thousands of dollars to correct the an
>error which would otherwise become deliberately hurting now it has been found.
>Anyway, the point I made in my mail to Doug Ewell was not about
>Grabar, but about the way the mail to refuse it, document why, and
>explain how to proceed from here, had not been sent.
>The proposition introduced by Mark Davis is a very good step ahead to
>address this problem. We have consensually agreed the RFC 4646 text.
>We need now to see it applied. It also shows that had we started
>working together on the first WG-LTRU Draft we would have saved 2 years.
>Here is the mail Peter partly quoted.
>>On 16:18 17/09/2006, Peter Constable said:
>>>As Editor for ISO 639-3, I cannot make unilateral decisions to add
>>>items to the draft code table. The only additions to the ISO 639-3
>>>draft code table that do not require JAC review are items that the
>>>JAC have added to 639-2 and that, therefore, necessarily must bec
>>>added to ISO 639-3.
>>>If you have a need for an identifier for Classical Armenian, or if
>>>you know of a user community that has such a need, the process to
>>>request addition to 539-2 is clearly documented on the ISO 
>>>639-2/RA Web site.
>>>I'm guessing that you don't know of a specific user need for this,
>>>but whether you do or not, you can still request an addition to
>>>639-2 following the instructions at the link provided above. Though
>>>I don't know anything about the history of Armenian other than that
>>>it does have a literary history, Classical Armenian sounds to me
>>>like something librarians and others somewhere would probably have
>>>a need for, but the process for getting an ID in ISO 639 must still
>  >>be followed.
>>Dear Peter,
>>I am afraid that as so often when reading my mails (like the one you
>>awake all the TC37 and who else for :-)) you guessed/read wrong. If
>>I chose to support Grabar it was to show you and Michael Everson how
>>shocking was the IESG disrespect of RFC 4646 IRT the IANA list.
>>Increasing the confusion (created by the lack of definition of what
>>is a language in Internet context) between the ISO 639 academic work
>>and the IETF supposed duty to documment a better Internet (RFC 3935
>>by Harald) for human real life interrelations.
>>Because I supposed it was an obvious and shocking case for both of
>>you as it is for me.
>>I thought basic, for experts like both of you, to know about the
>>Armenian publishing history, the today Mecharists Monks of Saint
>>Lazzaro in their Venice Island, their library, their influence over
>>Eastern Europe culture and academic world, and on the history of
>>printing, libraries, languages protection. I thought also that as
>>Christian and/scholars you would know that Grabar is the liturgical
>>language of the Armenian Church, the oldest national Church in the
>>world. This obviously also raises the problem of SIL as an unique
>>source: they will never try to translate Bible to people who
>>considered as its eldest Christian experts. But they should have
>>known one of the languages they could/should translate Bible comments _from_.
>>If you do not believe me: 
>>You may have a look at 
>>under works (just select the first book: encyclopedia) which renders
>>well the atmosphere of San Lazzaro Isola.
>>You may realise the impact of this kind of denial of your camarilla.
>>This is, for Armenians, as if you said that you do not want to
>>support Latin, or not to support "EU" to European people :-) ...
>>look at the impact of the Pope quote. There are positions which lead
>>to violence.
>>BTW, this may help you understand some important difference between
>>ISO and IANA: ISO is supposed to be a reference as it is published,
>>while IANA is supposed to answer questions to online needs. You may
>>dispute if Grabar should or not be in ISO 639. The user wants to
>>know what Grabar means. RFC 4646 confused that one way. I am afraid
>>that not publishing the ISO 639-3 table makes it the other. Leading
>>to common uncertainty and lacks.

Michael Everson *

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list