Re: [idn] UTF-8 as the long-term IDN solution

["Donald E. Eastlake 3rd" <dee3@torque.pothole.com>]

I am writing to support the WG chairs. IDN has been a particularly
contentious and multidimentsional problem. IETF working groups are not
run by voting or polls but by the chair's judgement of consensus and
how to achieve progress on the charter.  Although polls can, in some
cases, be useful, they occur only at the discretion of the chair. The
appeals path if you don't like the chair's judgement is quite clear,
it goes to the Area Director, and then the IESG. It specifically does
not include the poised mailing list.

Although I haven't seen that much evidence of consensus on the point,
it's possible that there is an IDN WG consensus that the "long-term"
solution is UTF-8, where long term is >10 years. But I believe the
charter of the WG is to do something a lot sooner than that and I do
not believe there is a consensus to just send UTF-8 in the near term.

I do not see any bias in the chairs. On the other hand, over several
years, I have observed what I believe is consistent trigger happy
posting of ad hominum attacks by Mr. Bernstein in violaiton of the
draft IETF document which the POISSON WG insists on calling a "Code of
Coduct.

Donald

From:  "James Seng/Personal" <James@Seng.cc>
Message-ID:  <00e901c10d9c$8c55d860$dd00a8c0@jamessonyvaio>
To:  "D. J. Bernstein" <djb@cr.yp.to>, <idn@ops.ietf.org>,
<iesg@ietf.org>,
            <poised@lists.tislabs.com>
References:  <E15LLxX-000G18-00@psg.com>
<20010714211816.D31484@arwen.cs.berkeley.edu
> <20010715203004.30572.qmail@cr.yp.to>
Date:  Mon, 16 Jul 2001 10:10:56 +0800

>> I believe that the IDN WG has consensus on the following point: ``The
>> long-term IDN solution will encode Unicode characters as UTF-8 on the
>> wire.'' I find the other possibilities absurd, and I am dismayed at
>the
>> amount of time that has been wasted discussing them on the IDN list.
>
>I speak for myself in this note. (Marc may have different opinion)
>
>The working groups works based on ideas documented in internet drafts
>and not a broad statement/claim.
>
>> On 2001-05-29 I requested that the the IDN WG chairs run a poll to
see
>> whether we do, in fact, have consensus on this point.
>>
>> ``I would like to hear some support on this before we run this
poll,''
>> James Seng said, speaking as chair.
>>
>> He promptly heard some support, but he did not run the poll. I asked
>why
>> the chairs were not running the poll. There was no response.
>
>First, there is a response: I requested you to point to an internet
>draft which you are referring or write a draft yourself.
>
>Secondly, strawpoll are not fun events which we conduct -- it is very
>time-consuming. Surprisingly, I still have a day-time job.
>
>Thirdly, strawpoll are useful, but not neccessary, when the chairs
wants
>to know if there is a consensus on a particular *draft*.
>
>And last, but not the least, there is a existing announced process to
>split the wg drafts into Pool W for drafts with 7 supporters and Pool T
>for others. If you strongly feel about your idea, please write a draft,
>gather 7 supporters, then come back to the working group with your
>draft.
>
>> I accuse the chairs of bias in their selection of polls. They appear
>to
>> be running polls that they believe will promote their personal
>agendas,
>> and refusing to run any other polls. Does the IETF have any
procedures
>> to fix this problem?
>
>You are free to form any conspiracy theory you like in your personal
>thoughts. But making these theory into public statement requires
>substained evidences.
>
>If anyone feels the wg chairs is act inappropriatly, a private note to
>IESG would usually do the job. Given that a number of IESG and IAB
>members are on this list, any wrongdoing would be note almost
>immediately.
>
>Once in a while, certain individual in the wg have louder voice than
>others and repeat his opinion often enough. Fortunately, the IETF
>process does not guage consensus based on decibel level or number of
>emails sent. Instead, we work on Internet Drafts and consensus, ie.
each
>and every wg members' views are taken into consideration. A louder
voice
>does not make anyone more important than others.
>
>And the wg chairs are here to assist the process, not to conduct
>strawpoll for individual whims. Thank you.
>
>-James Seng
>