Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102

Jordi,

None of the URLs seems to contradict that english is the most widely spoken 
second language.
And you also did not make an argument why it would make more sense to select 
the language
based on first language vs. second language speakers.

Also note that "second language" is just a good starting point. More 
importantly,
you want to have some common language in a professional area. And try to change 
that slower
than average human lifetime, so that professional experts are not rendered 
useless because
they can not learn another language at higher age.

In computer/networking etc. this is english. That has mostly historical reasons,
but IMHO its quite a good choice: It is easier to learn, and there is a high 
tolerance
for even mediocre language proficiencies in countries that commonly use it. To 
put it
into the original context of this thread: Only in the USA can you be 
interrogated and
potentially thrown out of the country by an immigrations officer that speaks 
the native
language worse than you!

Or you can just count the languages used in open source code comments on the 
Internet ;-)

Cheers
    Toerless

On Wed, Apr 19, 2017 at 11:01:37AM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
> The problem comes from non-being a native speaker, as definitively that means 
> that many times you ???translate??? from your mother tongue. And in this 
> case, it seems, according to many sources, English and Chinese is declining 
> across the time vs Spanish. Most of the sources state that Spanish is the 2nd 
> one right now, some indicate it is Hindi, but English is always after Spanish 
> (again, native speakers):
>
> https://www.tomedes.com/top-10-languages-natively-spoken.php
>
> http://www.vistawide.com/languages/top_30_languages.htm
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_number_of_native_speakers
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Linguistic_demography
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers
>
> The latest info from 2016, which I???ve found only in spanish, seems to 
> confirm the trend and in 2016 the censed number of native spanish speakers 
> raised to 472 millions, 567 as second language, which agains confirms 
> Chinesse being the first, Spanish the second (7,8% of total population).
>
> http://www.cervantes.es/imagenes/File/prensa/EspanolLenguaViva16.pdf
>
> Regards,
> Jordi
>  
>
> -----Mensaje original-----
> De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org> en nombre de Toerless Eckert 
> <tte(_at_)cs(_dot_)fau(_dot_)de>
> Responder a: <tte(_at_)cs(_dot_)fau(_dot_)de>
> Fecha: martes, 18 de abril de 2017, 23:09
> Para: JORDI PALET MARTINEZ <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>
> CC: "ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org" <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>
> Asunto: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
>
>     On Sat, Apr 15, 2017 at 10:54:09PM +0200, JORDI PALET MARTINEZ wrote:
>     > This shows something that I believe most of the native English IETF 
> participants usually don???t realize when having discussion (I???m referring 
> here in general, also technical discussions) with non-native speakers, and 
> how difficult is for the others. Maybe we should switch to Chinese as the 
> default IETF language, or Spanish, as they have more speakers worldwide than 
> English!
>     
>     
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_languages_by_total_number_of_speakers
>     
>     According to that page, spanish does not have more speakers worldwide 
> than english, but
>     rather the opposite. And IMHO, the relevant number is really just the 
> number of L2
>     (second language) speakers, and thats lead by english, followed by malay, 
> french,
>     mandarin, arabic, hindi, russian, urdu, swahili and then spanish!
>     
>     > I???m still believe that IAOC attitude is not justified at all, and if 
> we don???t have answers from them by next Monday, we should consider a recall 
> process. Hopefully is not the case.
>     
>     What do you think is the IAOC attitude ? All i read was very noncommittal 
> and "we
>     still collect information".
>     
>     I do not even know what the metric for selection is. I hope it is not to 
> make the
>     most vocal mailing list participants most happy. I would start with 
> excluding the least
>     number of candidate participants excluded by travel policies, then the 
> lowest price for
>     median particiants (flight, hotel, food) and then most convenient. I think
>     IAOC somehow takes these factors into account, but i can not remember 
> that they did send 
>     their most concrete data for these factors for various countries to the 
> mailing list.
>     
>     Cheers
>         Toerless
>     
>     
>     > Regards,
>     > Jordi
>     > 
>     > -----Mensaje original-----
>     > De: ietf <ietf-bounces(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>; en nombre de JORDI PALET 
> MARTINEZ <jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>;
>     > Responder a: < jordi(_dot_)palet(_at_)consulintel(_dot_)es>;
>     > Fecha: viernes, 14 de abril de 2017, 01:24
>     > Para: <ietf(_at_)ietf(_dot_)org>;
>     > Asunto: Re: Update on feedback on US-based meetings, and IETF 102
>     > 
>     > Well, for some countries what Trump said, has already been a fact, for 
> example the prohibition to have computers on board. Is not that the case?
>     > 
>     > Whatever we want to decide, cancel SF or not, it may highly depend on 
> budget, we like it or not. And that means that we need answers:
>     > 
>     >     If we cancel San Francisco, how much that is going to cost to the 
> IETF for each of two planned meetings?
>     >     
>     >     Can we cancel the actual hotel contract considering the new US 
> situation? If not, has this been considered for new contracts to avoid this 
> problem?
>     >     
>     >     Otherwise there is any reason that can justify the lack of 
> transparency in this?
>     > 
>     > The problem is so big for this community that I don???t even agree that 
> the IAOC should take the decision. It must be a collective one, especially 
> when the IAOC is demonstrating thru facts that they don???t care that we are 
> discussing and wasting our time without the minimum relevant data, this is 
> disrespectful and even more, not responding to emails since even since years 
> ago, shows lack of education 
>     > 
>     > Regards,
>     > Jordi
>     > 
>     > 
>     > 
>     > 
>     > **********************************************
>     > IPv4 is over
>     > Are you ready for the new Internet ?
>     > http://www.consulintel.es
>     > The IPv6 Company
>     > 
>     > This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
>     > 
>     > 
>     
>     -- 
>     ---
>     tte(_at_)cs(_dot_)fau(_dot_)de
>     
>     
>     
>
>
>
> **********************************************
> IPv4 is over
> Are you ready for the new Internet ?
> http://www.consulintel.es
> The IPv6 Company
>
> This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or 
> confidential. The information is intended to be for the use of the 
> individual(s) named above. If you are not the intended recipient be aware 
> that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this 
> information, including attached files, is prohibited.
-- 
---
tte(_at_)cs(_dot_)fau(_dot_)de