Appeal to ISO 639 RA in support of Elfdalian

[Doug Ewell]

Peter Constable wrote:

> [...] I find the RA to have as open a process as I've seen in anything
> comparable regarding proposals, comments on those proposals, and
> decisions: everything is publicly documented and far more publicly
> visible than the ISO 3166 maintenance process, or the ISO 15924
> maintenance process, or the Unicode / ISO 10646 process, or even the
> ietf-languages process.

I did not object that the 639-3 process was not open enough. I would say 
the reasons given for rejection were worded in a hand-waving manner, 
avoiding mention of the fact that Sweden's government objected to the 
request and that apparently superseded all the linguistic arguments. But 
that's not a complaint against the openness of the process; at least the 
objection letters were attached to the rejection document.

With that said, I can't see how the 639-3 process can be considered "far 
more publicly visible than [...] even the ietf-languages process." 
Everything about the ietf-languages process, all of the arguments pro 
and con, are handled on a public mailing list with a public web archive. 
All decisions are made on the list, not in meeting rooms. I don't know 
how you can get more open than that.

--
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸