Proposal to add "Kore' as Suppress-Script for 'ko'

Doug Ewell dewell at
Mon Jul 30 06:56:06 CEST 2007

Addison Phillips <addison at yahoo dash inc dot com> wrote:

>> I would like to approve this now, and not bother with two full weeks
>> more of discussion. The conclusion is foregone.
> When did Doug submit 'Kore'? Have you kept track?

For everyone's reference:

1.  I originally proposed this on 2007-07-10 07:27:22 UTC.

2.  Following a strong objection by Michael and a less-strong objection 
by John Cowan, I withdrew the request on 2007-07-11 15:14:16 UTC.

3.  Immediately after this, there were several posts in support of the 
proposal.  So on 2007-07-15 07:50:19 UTC, I sent a post noting that 
"it's still on the table, though controversial."  I sent the proposed 
final record to the list and added, "The earliest date this could be 
registered remains July 24, two weeks after I proposed it."

4.  Around this time, I also sent some private e-mails indicating that I 
would "withdraw the withdrawal."  While I didn't say so on the list, 
it's clear that the proposal was never considered a dead issue in the 
first place.

5.  On 2007-07-28 09:03:07 UTC, Michael wrote, "Hearing no consensus, I 
give you 2 more weeks to discuss this."

I take all of this to mean that the new review period should extend 
until Saturday, August 11.

> It is important to follow this particular bit of the process. The two 
> weeks exist to allow people time to react both to the registration 
> request and to any arguments for or against it.

I agree.  While we don't want this to drag on forever, there was clearly 
a lack of consensus at the end of 2 weeks, justifying (IMHO) the 
decision to extend the review for another 2 weeks.  They may pass 
uneventfully, as did the review period for '1994', or there may be 
additional discussion.

> I don't personally object to your approving this (except that I tend 
> to prefer we not register more suppress-scripts where not absolutely 
> necessary). I do think you should be patient. And I think you'd find 
> that the necessary time period is not two weeks from today.

I do think it is 2 weeks from Saturday, as shown above.

I would like to suggest, in defense of what I think is Michael's 
position, that we not have additional *needless* debate.  If someone has 
done additional research or can supply new information, as Randy did, 
that is productive.  Messages of the form "I don't know anything about 
the issues surrounding this proposal, but I support (or oppose) it" 
really don't contribute much to the debate.

Doug Ewell  *  Fullerton, California, USA  *  RFC 4645  *  UTN #14

More information about the Ietf-languages mailing list