Appeal to ISO 639 RA in support of Elfdalian
petercon at microsoft.com
Sun Apr 24 19:10:18 CEST 2016
The comments about tone aren’t as much about delicacy as about politeness.
Consider the RA’s comments that Mark wrote:
"The request to create the code [ovd] Övdalian is rejected at this point. However, the Registration Authority is sympathetic to the request and notes that the outcome of a future request might be different following further clarification of decision-making principles in the standard that are anticipated to come out of the current work item to produce a revision of the text of the standard."
Are you saying that the RA is wrong about being sympathetic to the request? Of course not. What those who are proponents are saying is that, whatever changes to decision-making principles may be considered, the correct decision in the case of Elfdalian is that it be considered a separate language. And so, you would like the decision to be reconsidered and made on the weight of the linguistic evidence, and that because of the current user needs you would like that decision to be taken soon rather than waiting until 2017.
I suggest Michael and whoever else step into the shoes of the recipient and consider what kind of wording you would find most convincing. And, no, I’m not going to provide text for that because, even though I’m sympathetic to the request, I’m not among those in need of urgent action by the RA.
Additionally, I suggest that you submit the input via the RA’s standard process so that it is publicly visible, and also send email drawing their attention to the submission and requesting expedited action.
From: Ietf-languages [mailto:ietf-languages-bounces at alvestrand.no] On Behalf Of Doug Ewell
Sent: Sunday, April 24, 2016 9:42 AM
To: Mark Davis ☕️ <mark at macchiato.com>; Michael Everson <everson at evertype.com>
Cc: ietflang IETF Languages Discussion <ietf-languages at iana.org>
Subject: Re: Appeal to ISO 639 RA in support of Elfdalian
Dear ISO 639-3/RA, the undersigned believe that Elfdalian is a language and not a dialect, and as such should be issued an ISO 639-3 code element, for the following reasons...
Is this what we are trying to say? It doesn’t mention that the RA previously denied the request, and therefore avoids telling the RA that they made an incorrect decision. Do we need to be even more delicate than this, and not even ask them to issue a code element, but only suggest abstractly that they might possibly wish to consider additional evidence?
It is sometimes difficult to ask someone in writing to overturn their decision without basically telling them their decision was in error. In speech, tone of voice and pauses and eyebrows make this sort of advanced finesse more practical.
I don’t have any problem with saying “the undersigned” or equivalent instead of claiming the entire group, some of whom may disagree.
Doug Ewell | http://ewellic.org | Thornton, CO 🇺🇸
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Ietf-languages