Re: [idn] statements from wg co-chairs

[Eric Brunner-Williams in Portland Maine <brunner@nic-naa.net>]

Marc,

You've provided an analysis and rational for action w.r.t. Soobok and
GyeongSeog's hangul draft.

You've provided a conclusion without an analysis for action w.r.t.
XiaoDong et alia's tsconv draft.

I trust you appreciate that it is difficult to agree with, or disagree
with, a conclusion that lacks an analysis, and you will rectify this
as soon as possible.

The proposal to drop a document (Soobok's reordering draft) having three
times the entry metric is odd, and makes probable some 20 comments during
the WGLC period that the naive-ordering document(s) lack reordering -- I
guess you knew that already.

Substituting a "roadmap" document for a "requirements" document is one
solution. I'd hoped to fix the editorial problem, and not discard the
work already captured by the editors, or ignored by the editors, and
loose context.

To state that a draft under working group change control is outdated,
no longer in sync, and has errors, means that the editors are not
responsive to the working group. The usual remedy is to thank-and-excuse
the editor(s), and find an interested and competent person or persons to
be responsive to the working group.

I think that a "roadmap" proposal is sound. However, there was work earlier,
now abandoned, in the idn-compare-NN drafts (Hoffman).

I think that a "requirements-that-meet-the-roadmap" draft would not be
a complete substitute for a "requirements" draft.

I think that a "no requirements" proposal is not sound.

I propose the WG thanks-and-excuse the current editors of the requirements
draft, and solicit new editor(s) for the requirements draft.

Eric