Re: Two official work languages is smarter (was Re: IETF working languag

The biggest burden of multiple official languages in the ITU imho is not
professional translation in meetings (although infrastructure needs would
severely limit where we could meet), it's the process for publishing
documents. Subject matter experts and translators need to ensure that all
translations say exactly what was agreed to, with the same nuances. You
think the RFC editor process takes time now?
On Mar 9, 2014 10:58 PM, "Kathleen Moriarty" <
kathleen(_dot_)moriarty(_dot_)ietf(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:

> As an FYI to those that have not had the pleasure of an ITU-T meeting (2
> stories under the ground for 2 weeks), only the plenary has translators,
> study group meetings are held in English.  Documents are only translated
> after final publication.
>
> It is common for SDOs to hold their meetings in English.
>
> Best regards,
> Kathleen
>
> Sent from my iPhone
>
> On Mar 9, 2014, at 3:34 PM, "Stewart Bryant (stbryant)" <
> stbryant(_at_)cisco(_dot_)com> wrote:
>
> I understand that in international discussions the number of official
> languages is normally either one or six?
>
>  Stewart
>
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 9 Mar 2014, at 18:46, "Abdussalam Baryun" 
> <abdussalambaryun(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com>
> wrote:
>
>  Bonjour Russ,
>
>  I am sorry, and I did not mean any insult, most of IETF meeting are not
> in Europe but most IETF meetings are in America. Therefore, my reason was
> that the decisions and dimensions discussed are mostly American dimensions.
> I may be wrong, and I never say I am right. However, when I ask why IETF
> most meetings are in America, the reply is always : because the majority
> participants are from America (that means the majority participants are
> English language speakers and readers).
>
>  To encourage the demography change and developing diversity of the IETF
> it is important to reduce meetings in America to balance in all the world
> regions and then hope to open the subject of two languages again to see the
> results.
>
>  AB
>
> On Sunday, March 9, 2014, Russ Housley wrote:
>
> > 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