On 22 jul 2014, at 20:27, Andrew Sullivan <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:16:39PM -0400, Marc Blanchet wrote: >> - maybe it will be better to have different experts so that they look at the >> problem with different eyes (in this context, more eyes is a feature). but >> they would be better to coordinate. not sure it needs to be written > > I think it would be _terrible_ to have different experts here, unless > there's an interlock between then registries. If there are two > experts, they might draw different conclusions. Indeed, John, Patrik, > and I all came to different conclusions about the most recent version > of Unicode, and it was only after considerable discussion that Patrik > and I understood what John was worried about. Different decisions > between the experts would be extremely bad. > > I know there's a hurry to get this out, but hoping the experts get it > right if there's no interlock is too dangerous. Being the appointed expert for IDNA, I would like to say I would LOVE to have a 2nd person for among other reasons the reasons Andrew list above. That said, I think the appointed experts should get instructions to _communicate_with_each_other_ (!!!) and synchronize in a coordinated way with IANA. This to solve the issues I think Pete was thinking of addressing by having one and only one person. I am expert on IDNA, and possibly one person with clue on Unicode. Not Precis. But with that knowledge, of course I am happy to continue to help IETF as much as I can. Patrik
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP using GPGMail
_______________________________________________ precis mailing list [email protected] https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/precis
