Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?

From: Kenneth Whistler (
Date: Sun Apr 25 2004 - 19:34:30 EDT

  • Next message: Doug Ewell: "Re: [META] Should there be a separate public list for CLDR?"

    > >We do not restrict the content of the list.
    > I do not want to invite locale discussions into the fracas, as you have done.

    Locale-related issues have been discussed on the Unicode list
    forever and a month of Tuesdays. Just dig back in the archives.

    I do not want to invite meta-discussions about list management
    into the fracas, as you have done. But once every year or
    so there seems to be some big blowup about list management
    on this list, with everybody chiming in about how things should
    be done. And a few weeks later, it all blows over, and the
    list keeps right on discussing whatever the heck it decides
    it wants to discuss.

    By the way, since we are having this discussion, my opinion is
    that a new general discussion list (or whatever)
    should *not* be created, as it is guaranteed to end up being
    abused through cross-posting, as we periodically see with some
    of the other lists nominally focussed on particular script issues.

    > >And the signal to noise ratio is very low; just take a moment to
    > >look yourself at the topics discussed. I have no desire to have yet
    > >another list with the same characteristics.
    > Please listen to your constituents, Mr President. We know better than
    > you do. General discussion of locales should not occur on the Unicode
    > list. It introduces a whole spectrum of new elements which I do not
    > want in my Unicode in-box. You can expect regular complaints on this
    > issue if

    Fine, Michael. Keep contributing to lowering the signal to noise
    ratio on the list. I'm sure that everybody else will appreciate
    that. This weekend's list of messages is a prime example.

    > I understand that cldr@ is on the same level as unicore@. Very well
    > and good. On Unicore, locale matters will be considered off-topic, no?



    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun Apr 25 2004 - 20:35:15 EDT