RE: Resolution process

From: Philippe Verdy (
Date: Fri Jun 01 2007 - 12:55:34 CDT

  • Next message: Philippe Verdy: "RE: Resolution process"

    Mark Davis wrote:

    > On 5/30/07, Philippe Verdy <> wrote:
    >> There are disputed entries that were part of CLDR 1.4 by error :
    >> it was not even possible to avoid them to be released, because
    >> the proposal period for CLDR 1.4 was extremely short (about one month),
    >> it was not announced clearly in advanced (a single message posted
    >> to the Unicode list, that was not delivered to every one), and then
    >> inaccessible for a part of that period (lots of technical problems
    >> of performance on the server, even during that period).
    >> The result was that the CLDR 1.4 contained many entries fro which it was
    later impossible to vote AGAINST their addition.
    > This is not the case. Previous values can be overridden;
    > see the process documentation.

    Actually I know that I can *propose* an override and vote for it, but with
    the current automated minimum ratios needed to perform a change, it will be
    difficult to change something with just two votes in favour of the change,
    even if the previous data was an error, and this is explained in a bug
    report (or in the online CLDR forum, now viewable also in the RSS feed).

    So I fear that a lot of English terms that were standardized in CLDR 1.4
    (for which I vote against before the CLDR 1.4 release, because I could not
    even make an alternative proposal, as the submission phase was so much
    unusable before it was closed), will still persist in CLDR 1.5, because
    there won't be enough votes to overturn the current value. Many entries in
    CLDR 1.4 did not even reach any minimum consensus: all we could do was to
    vote against them, but it was too late and a single vote from the initial
    proposer was accepted and put into the release because of absence of an

    This was a major problem last year, and this past release received very
    negative opinions, or it has been used now in several projects as if they
    were effectively right. We can still see today, people trying to change
    correct data by replacing it with the incorrect data because it was part of
    the CLDR 1.4 release.

    I had lot of works to do (and needed lot of patience, with submission times
    in the tool that took sometimes 12 minutes to complete for a single change
    since the end of April... any change was overloading the server for several
    minutes, so I had to wait and perform most of the work in the middle of the
    night when the server was finally accessible) trying to catch all those
    errors and completing many new entries for French, and proposing several
    alternatives that vetters could also support (this means that some of my
    submissions were acceptable for me, but I voted for another one that I still

    There remains proposals that could not be deleted (they keep one vote on
    them, because apparently my own account used a different numeric vetter id
    that has changed over time, or because of possible past SQL bugs in the CLDR
    tool). The addition of a DELETE option (for entries we were alone to
    propose) came very late (but it was really needed to avoid creating
    confusion among vetters, as nobody would really want to vote for these
    bogous inputs.

    (Note that blank votes are still not counted as votes against all existing
    proposals, it is considered like "no opinion, every other vote is
    acceptable, vetters should still have the possibility to cast their vote
    explicitly for a "vote against all these proposals" option, counted like
    other explicit proposals: if this option gets the majority, then no proposal
    will be accepted in the release before a final consensus is asked directly
    to vetters within the forum; for now, all we can do is to discuss the
    problematic item in the forum/RSS feed).

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Jun 01 2007 - 12:58:19 CDT