Duplicate Busters: Survey #2
doug at ewellic.org
Sat Aug 9 03:43:05 CEST 2008
Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:
> An alleged WG rough consensus in conflict with say RFC 1591
> or 2026 would be not too impressing, but this doesn't affect
> the NCR issue (my POV, somebody saying DOOM could disagree).
Regarding RFC 1591:
Neither LTRU nor ietf-languages deals with domain names, which are a
separate application of ISO 3166 from language tags, and neither IANA
nor ICANN has been asked to decide "what is a country" for language-tag
purposes. Therefore, there is no conflict with the informative RFC 1591
Regarding RFC 2026:
Either a post sent to the IETF mailing list (on which Frank is an active
participant), a direct mail to the IESG leadership, or a formal appeal
would be a better forum for charging LTRU with process violation that
this advisory list.
I hope we do not see a return to the working environment of two to three
years ago, where a certain poster expressed his disagreement with LTRU
WG decisions by making allegations of process abuse, mixed with threats
of procedural and/or legal action.
>> He's a democratic editor too.
> That was not my impression wrt the disputed territory codes,
> and technical decisions based on voting could be a nightmare.
While not a strict count of yeas and nays, "rough consensus" does tend
to imply that barring some major technical conflict, the will of the
majority trumps the will of the minority. I disagreed with the decision
to add ISO 3166 exceptionally reserved codes as subtags, but I was in
the minority, and there was no major technical conflict. You win some,
you lose some.
Doug Ewell * Thornton, Colorado, USA * RFC 4645 * UTN #14
More information about the Ietf-languages