On 04/05/2004 12:06, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:47 -0700 2004-05-04, Peter Kirk wrote:
On 03/05/2004 19:04, Michael Everson wrote:
At 09:41 -0700 2004-05-03, Peter Kirk wrote:
If your support had been cited in the original proposal with your arguments, rather a lot of spilled electrons could have been saved. Well, I guess it is not too late to include them in a revised proposal.
What format would you like that addition to have? ...
I'll leave that to you,
I'm not really all that interested in the justifications per se. I write proposals to encode things that I think should be encoded. That involves an investment of time and resources, which implies that I think it is worthwhile investing in. Does that make sense to you?
Proper justification of a proposal is always important. The UTC now and in the future needs to be able to demonstrate that it acted fairly e.g. in rejecting Klingon, accepting Coptic disunification from Greek, and whatever it does decide on Phoenician. It should not accept one expert's say-so, especially when that one expert boasts (inaccurately) of having had no contact with the user community.
but for a start you can name Deborah Anderson as a user of the script with whom you have had contact. And yourself if you like, as far as I am concerned.
What if I had done that to start with?
If Deborah's name and arguments had been included in the proposal from the start I would have kept much more quiet in this debate.
-- Peter Kirk [EMAIL PROTECTED] (personal) [EMAIL PROTECTED] (work) http://www.qaya.org/
