On 22 May 2015 at 18:28, Adam Roach <[email protected]> wrote: > > But what's the criteria for allowing this inclusion? Mike Connor's > personal opinion? If I requested an entry for "The Republic of Texas," what > would be the grounds for accepting or rejecting it? > > The problem here isn't Kosovo per se; it's the precedent. If we accept new > entries, then we need to define formal criteria for what rises to the level > of being acceptable, and what does not -- the only other alternative is to > use a subjective and possibly contentious evaluation for each request. Both > paths lead us to being forced into politically dicey positions in the > future. >
Let's not get into slippery slope arguments. We both know that's not something that would pass muster against any meaningful criteria. Can you name an example that would actually be widely controversial? If not, I don't think this is a material concern. There's no objective criteria on the table. There's just passing the buck to ISO and washing our hands. I don't consider that to be a reasonable solution, especially when there's an obviously broken case in play like Kosovo. More importantly, I do not believe any rigourous, objective criteria can be created that will reflect reality, as international recognition is so heavility politicized as to be explicitly non-objective in nature. This most definitely includes both ISO 3166 and GENC, as well as individual states recognition of sovereignty. I don't have a problem with entrusting what is inevitably a subjective decision to a module owner. No two examples are alike, these situations are complicated and there's no objectively correct answer. Kosovo is easy, others not so much, and a smart module owner should be able to propose a reasonable approach in most situations. -- Mike _______________________________________________ governance mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
