policy wrt politics (was RE: be-tarask language subtag registration form)

C Eddie Whitehead cewcathar at yahoo.com
Mon Apr 2 16:59:34 CEST 2007

Hi, thanks,
Peter Constable <petercon at microsoft.com> wrote:        v\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} o\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} w\:* {behavior:url(#default#VML);} .shape {behavior:url(#default#VML);}                     We must wait two weeks – that’s procedure established in the RFC that created this process in the first place. I have long contended that at the end of two weeks some action must always be taken: approve the request, deny the request or extend discussion for a new two-week period. IMO, extending to a new two-week period should only happen when clear and obtainable progress toward a decision can be achieved. I do not think extensions just so we can carry on discussions is a good idea. If there is specific information that is needed before a decision can be made, then at the end of two weeks the request should, IMO, be denied with an explanation of what is needed.

  > So I would not vote for waiting to hear from others for more than two weeks.
  I think we agree on that point.


Finding fabulous fares is fun.
Let Yahoo! FareChase search your favorite travel sites to find flight and hotel bargains.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.alvestrand.no/pipermail/ietf-languages/attachments/20070402/861eaa19/attachment.html

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list