Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language
2014-03-09 13:10:48
AB:
Harald Alvestrand, a Norwegian, was IETF Chair when this discussion took place.
He made the consensus call.
I find you assertion that the discussion only considered American dimensions
quite an insult to all that participated in the IETF at the time.
Russ
On Mar 9, 2014, at 1:28 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Bonjour Russ
If there is no pointer to such discussion then I believe there were no
discussion at all. However, I will raise this issue very seriously again.
Please provide me with information so I can comment on it, because you
mentioned that it was discussed in every dimension and I think it is only the
American dimensions.
AB
On Sunday, March 9, 2014, Russ Housley wrote:
The IETF had a discussion about languages while Harald was chair. In my
opinion, every dimension of the issues was discussed at that time. I do not
think that anything new has been raised for use to reopen the discussion.
Russ
On Mar 9, 2014, at 12:37 PM, Abdussalam Baryun wrote:
Bonjour,
I agree with Mohammed totally. I recommend allowing another second official
language will solve a lot of native English speakers problems.
Comments below
AB
On Sunday, March 9, 2014, Ted Lemon wrote:
On Mar 8, 2014, at 8:02 PM, mohammed serrhini <serrhini(_at_)mail(_dot_)ru>
wrote:
I think their exclusion is not fair
the effort must be made by the latter because he has put himself in the
skin of the other
and must to ask him self , what happen in the case if native language is
the official language IETF is not English
One of the frustrations of life is that even if we recognize that something
is unfair, there may be limited possibilities for addressing the unfairness.
It was once the case that French was the language of diplomacy, and an
attempt was made to formulate an artificial language, Esperanto, for use by
diplomats as a new "lingua franca."
Not only diplomats but the French language is more sensitive and polite
language which has nice feelings.
For better or for worse, the Internet broke that process (I don't think
there was much hope for Esperanto anyway). So what do we do now?
The answer to your Qs is let us Speak French, and write and read in French.
Programming in one language is poor programming, IETF SHOULD become smarter
and it SHOULD be able to write and read in French.
Try to revive Esperanto as a language for expressing standards? Choose a
different language, so as to change the lucky recipient of privilege?
Thanks
I can't speak for other IETFers, but I am keenly aware of the unfairness of
the current situation. But the only thing I know how to do to fix it is to
help people for whom english is not their first language to participate in
english anyway.
That is one side solving, so you help non native speakers what about helping
native English speakers that complaint a lot about English grammar and non
sense of IETF participants that speak IETF language.
IETF language is using English right but it is not the same way Americans
use it but it is the worlds use of English.
There is a lot of interest within the IETF in doing this—it's not just me.
I add to your interest. There were a great person I meat in IETF that is
volunteering translation to French language.
If you have ideas for how to change this, please share them with us.
I always do share my ideas but some native English readers use their
receiving problem to put down ideas just because of few grammar mistakes.
But the mere fact that I as a native english speaker happen to be privileged
at the moment is a fact with which I am already painfully familiar (although
no doubt much less painfully than the non-native english speakers).
If other IETFers are not aware of this, it would be good if they could wake
up to it. I would certainly advise native-english-speaking IETFers to
really exercise patience when communicating with non-native speakers,
keeping in mind exactly what you, Mohammed, have said: that the situation is
unfair, and it is incumbent on those of us in the privileged position to do
our best to help those who are not.
I said many times that IETF needs to solve the problem and happy to get
support.
But is that all we can do? And if we do it to the best of our ability,
will it be enough?
<Prev in Thread] |
Current Thread |
[Next in Thread>
|
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, (continued)
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Narelle
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language,
Russ Housley <=
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Abdussalam Baryun
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Gordon Lennox
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Stewart Bryant (stbryant)
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Kathleen Moriarty
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Scott Brim
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, John C Klensin
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Loa Andersson
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Harald Alvestrand
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Dale R. Worley
- Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working language, Gordon Lennox
|
|
|