Flavors of Hepburn (was Status of Japanese requests)
petercon at microsoft.com
Wed Oct 7 09:42:50 CEST 2009
People are not inclined to initiate appeals if they don't even know an action they don't agree with has been made. I see Addison's point: it matters not at all whether Addison had any inclination to appeal anything in this case or not. The RFC spells out certain procedures for a reason; Addison was elucidating the reason. The procedures should be followed; they were not.
From: ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Tuesday, October 06, 2009 5:33 AM
To: ietf-languages at iana.org
Subject: Re: Flavors of Hepburn (was Status of Japanese requests)
"Martin J. Dürst" <duerst at it dot aoyama dot ac dot jp> wrote:
>> IMHO, either filing an appeal or not filing an appeal would be better
>> than talking about appeals while leaving it unclear whether one is
>> going to be filed.
> Much better of course would be if Michael would send a short message
> with his decisions. I think people might in particular be interested
> in reject vs. extend for those subtags that were not accepted this
> time around.
Well, I agree on both counts. But Addison mentioned the appeals process, which pertains to actions already taken (or not) rather than future policy; and he specifically mentioned the decision to approve.
Doug Ewell | Thornton, Colorado, USA | http://www.ewellic.org RFC 5645, 4645, UTN #14 | ietf-languages @ http://is.gd/2kf0s
Ietf-languages mailing list
Ietf-languages at alvestrand.no
More information about the Ietf-languages