Subject: [Ltru] Re: Proposed changes to region subtags

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 17:46:06 -0800

Frank Ellermann <nobody at xyzzy dot claranet dot de> wrote:

> Mark claims that this is only an "academic exercise".  Maybe he
> thinks that CS, DE, VN, YE, and YU were all academic exercises.

No, you got it backward.  Mark wrote:

> While you many see no urgency to this, I suggest that you remember
> that there are some people for whom this is no academic exercise.

Mark is one of the people who does NOT think this is an academic
exercise.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California
 http://users.adelphia.net/~dewell/

_______________________________________________
Ltru mailing list
[email-masked]
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ltru

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 2 Apr 2005 21:15:45 -0800

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:

> Neither did I. But I also observed that most of the international
> standard blockages and delays result from the need of compromise on
> that very matter. This is why the best way to block the Draft I am
> advised, is to leave it the way it is.

Does participation in an IETF Working Group with the intent of finding
"the best way to block the Draft" qualify as "disruptive behavior" under
BCP 94?  If not, then what would?

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 03 Apr 2005 11:10:05 +0200

>BCP 94?  If not, then what would?

This permanent twisting starts being a boring disruptive behavior per se. 
Please reread what I wrote.
Or may be, you are precisely referring to your own attitude. In this case I 
apologize for the misinderstanding.
When is the jar going to be ready? I have a meeting on this on Tuesday and 
would like to show them an example or two of what you produced.
jfc

---

From: "Doug Ewell" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sun, 3 Apr 2005 09:51:29 -0700

JFC (Jefsey) Morfin <jefsey at jefsey dot com> wrote:

> When is the jar going to be ready? I have a meeting on this on Tuesday
> and would like to show them an example or two of what you produced.

Please reread what I wrote on Tuesday, March 29:

> I propose the following changes to the region subtags.  I'd like to
> see if we can reach a rough consensus on these items by next
> Wednesday, April 6, at which point I will float a new version of the
> registry, as well as complete step-by-step instructions for populating
> all parts of the registry.

The goal was to allow everyone a week to review the proposed changes.
So far, Mark and Peter have agreed, and perhaps Addison and John too
(based on responses to a different message), and Frank has agreed with
the proviso that more rules could be added later.  Nobody so far has
explicitly disapproved.

If you need some examples for Tuesday, my message of Saturday, April 2
at 2:58 includes an example of the date record (not very informative)
and two language records.  There are no examples yet of the fields
"Deprecated," "Name_Changed," and "Former_Value" because those are still
being debated, and because they are not authorized in any draft.

-Doug Ewell
 Fullerton, California