Subject: Re: Enough was enough

From: [email-masked] (Kai Henningsen)
Date: 02 Sep 2005 13:56:00 +0200

[email-masked] (JFC (Jefsey) Morfin)  wrote on 30.08.05 in <[email-masked]>:

> Dear Brian and all,
> This mail of Harald Alvestrand positively concludes a long, difficult
> and boring effort of mine started at the WG-IDNA. I apologise to all
> for the inconveniences it created all over these years. My Franglish
> and my lack of talents left me with a tested method: the style you
> suffered, to pass ideas to who is interested or concerned; home work
> to demonstrate and implement them. It avoids conflicts and obtains
> results, at the cost of some ad-hominems instead of major conflicts
> (like on the spam issue). The Draft has considerably improved since I
> started partly opposing it in December.
>
> Harald Alvestrand expressed several times that the IETF is neither
> interested nor competent in multilingualism, an area which is
> necessarily, by its complexity, the size of its financial figures and
> the involved industrial, political and cultural interests, the engine
> of the development of the future Internet (RFC 3869 unfortunately did
> not considered). So, he managed or sponsored himself that policy with
> real talent. I was first confronted to that IETF situation through
> the WG-IDNA: it shown me the rightness of his evaluation.

Frankly, your analysis is about as wrong as possible.

This is NOT about language problems, or about centralization, or whatever.

> My sadness is the very very small number of non-English mother tongue
> participants: the alternative SDO Harald found is no really better in
> that area. When addressing multilingualism, this should be very
> concerning for us all.

Well, I'm certainly a non-English mother tongue participant. In fact, I  
seem to recall so is Harald Alvestrand.

And I side with Harald in this.

Your messages are often so full of jargon they are nearly impossible to  
understand. Furthermore, they often assert a large number of "facts" that  
certainly aren't true in the universe I see around me.

And lastly, their connection with the threads you post them in is often  
hard to understand, too.

MfG Kai

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

---

From: "JFC (Jefsey) Morfin" <[email-masked]>
Date: Sat, 03 Sep 2005 04:03:34 +0200

At 13:56 02/09/2005, Kai Henningsen wrote:
>[email-masked] (JFC (Jefsey) Morfin)  wrote on 30.08.05 in 
><[email-masked]>:

Hi! Kai,
This may be very well the case. But saying it is not enough. 
Explaining why would be better.

Please indicate who - except Harald Alvestrand and to some extend 
Paul Hoffman - wrote RFCs on the issue. Please indicate why it is not 
with talent? Please explain how Harald was then wrong? Or may be you 
mean something else?

>This is NOT about language problems, or about centralization, or 
>whatever talking of languages?

Aere we not talking of (de)centralised approach as opposed to 
distributed to support languages?

To know if it is to be centralised or decentralised is one of the 
issue of the debate I do not feel concerned about. Distributed, yes. 
Because it then affects the users technical independance and liberty.

>And I side with Harald in this.

This is your right. But ... what "side" are you refering to???

>understand.

If you refer this way to Franglish, I apologize. If you refer to 
terms defining precise concepts, you may be also rigth. The way to do 
otherwise?

>Furthermore, they often assert a large number of "facts" that

If in your world the IETF is a cultural melting pot and RFC 3774 is 
wrong, I join your universe.
But I suppose this is not what you want to say; please can you be so 
kind as to explain?

>And lastly, their connection with the threads you post them in is often

This may very well be. However, talking of the way the IETF supports 
multilingualism in an exchange resulting from a competition over the 
user dissemination of the multilingual information does not seem unreasonable?

Or may be you want to say that I confuse issues? In that case I would 
agree with you. Many problems, and most of the problems I am 
interested in, are architectural problems. By nature architectural 
issues are all related. They also all have in common that the current 
internet architecture is too tight to feet the usage needs. When you 
touch one you touch all the others.

The solution some propose is to constrict usage to fit in this tight 
framework. I can only oppose that everywhere, as I think the solution 
is in the drastic extension of this framework which is under way. Not 
plesant to have to always oppose. But the framework evolution cannot 
be acheived in keeping the old solution, and should be common while 
reactions to status-quo lead to balkanisation.

Friendly.
jfc