Folks,
On 2014-03-12 14:37, John C Klensin wrote:
--On Monday, March 10, 2014 07:13 -0400 Scott Brim
<scott(_dot_)brim(_at_)gmail(_dot_)com> wrote:
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?
Exactly.
Same problem in most ISO TCs. There, for particularly sensitive
standards, it is common for the relevant bodies to waive
translation altogether, publishing only in English. That has
been caused, at least in part, by its often taking months, and
sometimes years, to agree on authoritative translations that
have exactly the same meaning and interpretations in all of the
translations.
john
Agree with John, can we close this now and agree that ONE official
work language is smarter thean TWO?
/Loa
--
Loa Andersson email:
loa(_at_)mail01(_dot_)huawei(_dot_)com
Senior MPLS Expert loa(_at_)pi(_dot_)nu
Huawei Technologies (consultant) phone: +46 739 81 21 64