[Foundation-l] Introduction to the internal workings of the language subcommittee

[Florence Devouard]

Hello Pathoschild,

Thank you for the explanation of the internal workings of the committee.

I must confess something. We are not praising you enough for what you 
do. During over two years, editors came to the board for these difficult 
questions (actually, some still do sometimes...) and few of us had the 
willingness, the patience and the good will to follow up on these 
questions - though essential they are. I have some memories of 
discussions with Jimbo and Angela over constructed languages. We might 
have found good solutions on these ones, but once it went to code 
classification and coding, we were in distress.

Thank you SO MUCH for dealing with these issues !

Ant

(bisous)

Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) wrote:
> Hello,
> 
> Several people in the recent discussions, most recently Brian and
> Dovi, have asked about how the subcommittee reaches decisions and
> whether they can join to present their viewpoint. Here's a brief view
> into the wonderful world of the language subcommittee. Being a
> productive member of the subcommittee requires a very large investment
> of continuous time and effort.
> 
> The language subcommittee operates by consensus. This means that most
> proposed decisions are discussed at length, and many tend to be
> compromises. Virtually every aspect of the approval policy is a
> compromise between very different positions in the subcommittee.
> Although it's possible to make a decision over the objections of one
> member, this requires lengthy discussion to attempt a consensus, and a
> complete consensus of the rest of the participating members. This is a
> very time-consuming and stressful process, so that a single member can
> block a decision for a long time. However, it ensures that all
> viewpoints are heard and fairly represented.
> 
> The members of the subcommittee hold some significantly different
> opinions on several issues, and have significantly different
> priorities. As such, monthly discussion frequently outstrips many
> public mailing lists, and is sometimes heated. Discussion in January
> alone totaled some 20000 words.
> 
> Many discussions can be very technical, particularly those concerning
> language code classification and technical accommodations for
> particular languages (like sign languages). This requires research and
> a good understanding of the subject at hand, and is a further drain on
> time and effort.
> 
> Furthermore, after investing so much of your free time and effort on
> this, you must then defend yourself from public criticism for being
> slow, lazy, corrupt, arbitrary, and a sekrit cabal. When you're done
> with that, you then spend more of your free time answering requesters'
> questions and queries.
> 
> New members are chosen by consensus as well. Interested users tend to
> desist when I explain how much fun it will be. A number of our members
> are inactive; I want to ensure that new members know what they're
> getting into, and won't freak out and vanish when they're approved.
> 
> All this is why GerardM said "When the only reason to become a member
> of the LC is to argue a case, it makes little difference ;we can
> discuss on this list as effectively". Being a member of the
> subcommittee involves more than simply arguing your favourite subject.
> 
> If all that sounds fun to you, you're welcome to apply.
>