From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
Do what you feel is warranted, Bruce. You don't appear to be trying to
achieve consensus, which is the touchstone of the IETF process as I
understand it. If you feel issues should be taken to the
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:ietf-languages-
[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Bruce Lilly
So why not then also throw in the closely linked specification of
the Content-Language field, which has historically been in the same
document (RFC 1766)?
It was removed in the development of RFC
AFAIK the Unicode consortium plans a registry of locales, stuff
like de-DE etc. I hope that your ideas are compatible with
whatever they do (I've no idea, sorry)
The Unicode consortium has already a registry of locales, at
www.unicode.org/cldr/ For the language part of the locale IDs*, we are
Dear Peter,
please let focus on the discussion of draft to be approved by the IESG and
on its role. This document intends to replace RFC 3066 but does not want to
take into account RFC published since the RFC 3006, the current IANA
procedures, the work chartered in some WG, the internet
Hi,
sorry to tune in late, but keeping up with all the mails that are going
around I needed a vacation at the place of my in-laws...
I think the issue of a yearly audit has been solved already in the past
(Issue 721). However, I think that there is no mention of a special
audit outside the
Hi,
I think one of the things still missing from the document is setting of
the compensation for the IAOC members for their services, travel, etc. I
think that everybody expects the job to be voluntary and that's why it
has not been documented. However, for the sake of avoiding future
discussions
At 17:51 30/12/2004, Misha Wolf wrote:
JFC,
Your proposals would, as Martin has written, break millions
of deployed Web pages. You have suggested that the IETF
should not concern itself with the use of language tags in
W3C standards. It would be quite unacceptable for the IETF
to go for a
Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I think one of the things still missing from the document is setting of
the compensation for the IAOC members for their services, travel, etc. I
think that everybody expects the job to be voluntary and that's why it
has not been
thanks to Jonne for bringing this up - I agree that some text about this
should be in the document but I disagree on what it should say.
imo - the IAOC members should not be compensated for their time but
I think its reasonable for them to be reimbursed for expenses for
travel to meetings not
Ekr,
if we decide to reimburse for the expenses created by the position in
the IAOC we have to create also rules what is reimbursed and on what
terms. E.g., in what are reasonable costs (traveling in economy,
business, first?) etc. Especially difficult is to lay down the price for
the labor
Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
if we decide to reimburse for the expenses created by the position in
the IAOC we have to create also rules what is reimbursed and on what
terms. E.g., in what are reasonable costs (traveling in economy,
business, first?) etc.
Actually...
Section 4.
The Trustees shall not receive any compensation (apart from
reimbursement of expenses) for their services as Trustees, but this
shall not preclude reasonable compensation for services rendered to the
Society by a Trustee in some other capacity.
This is from the ISOC
Scott,
On Thu, 2004-12-30 at 20:14, ext Scott Bradner wrote:
thanks to Jonne for bringing this up - I agree that some text about this
should be in the document but I disagree on what it should say.
imo - the IAOC members should not be compensated for their time but
I think its reasonable
I admit that I maybe have too much a view point of someone working for a
relatively large company.
not everyone does
I try to approach this from a position where
the IAOC itself does not become a significant cost for IASA.
I agree - see my note - I do not think that face to face meetings
I really wonder if you start re-imbursing, then I want to be
re-imbursed too for my IESG services!
Bert
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Behalf Of
Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki)
Sent: Thursday, December 30, 2004 19:57
To: ext Scott
Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes:
I admit that I maybe have too much a view point of someone working for a
relatively large company. I try to approach this from a position where
the IAOC itself does not become a significant cost for IASA.
However, as these are
Dear Misha,
stating your own feelings in Adhominem instead of documenting
does not necessarily help. Nor quoting our resumes. There are
facts.
I documented precisely:
1. items which are missing in the proposed language tags
for them IMHO to be able to adequately support the Internet
The other Scott's approach looks like it's clearly the most reasonable,
and follows a model we have used before. No reimbursement for
performance of services; no reimbursement for meetings that are
associated with IETF; reimbursement for travel to special (not
IETF-associated) meetings where
From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Dear Peter,
please let focus on the discussion of draft to be approved by the IESG and
on its role.
Eh???!! I can't imagine what on earth do you think I was talking about if not
that.
This document intends to replace RFC 3066 but does
From: JFC (Jefsey) Morfin [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Of course it would not be clear if you don't have a conceptual model of
what language tags are identifiers *of*. When RFC 3066 was being
developed, there was a suggestion that script IDs be incorporated, but
some were reluctant, raising
Full agreement. Thank you Tex.
This discussion now lead to nowhere and may delay the draft.
1. I have documented the needs and listed the discrepancies (only one asked
a question on that, all the rest is noise over my comments on others
positions - what is normal since the target was to comment
Soininen == Soininen Jonne (Nokia-NET/Helsinki) [EMAIL PROTECTED]
writes:
Soininen x.x IAOC members compensation for labor, travel, and
Soininen other costs
Soininen The IAOC membership is considered voluntary. Hence, the
Soininen costs sustained by the members to participate
imo - the IAOC members should not be compensated for their time but
I think its reasonable for them to be reimbursed for expenses for
travel to meetings not held in the same place and time as IETF
meetings (or just before or after an IETF at the same location) - since
I would hope that almost all
please do not read more into what I said than I said - I *only* meant
what I said - nothing more (I have a hard time understanding how anyone
could have misread what I said)
I did not suggest any change to the non-reimbursment of IESG IAB
expanses - nor did I intend to
I expect the job of being
Sorry, Scott, I did not mean to imply that you had said anything more
than you actually said. I was simply asking whether you (or others)
though that non-IETF travel for IESG and IAB members should also be
reimbursed if it is not covered by an employer.
Personally, I don't understand why we
Paris in August:
http://www.usatoday.com/weather/news/2003-09-25-france-heat_x.htm
~gwz
___
Ietf mailing list
Ietf@ietf.org
https://www1.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ietf
26 matches
Mail list logo
