I agree with the comments below regarding the "50 documents"; we agreed to
it as a principle last month and it does serve as a useful, quantifiable
criterion to assist the JAC in assessing requests for additions. I also
feel that the onus should be on the submitter to supply the evidence.
From: Milicent K Wewerka [mailto:[log in to unmask]]
Sent: Friday, March 10, 2000 2:29 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Language code form
From: Milicent Wewerka
Regarding comments from John Clews on the language code form, I agree
that requesting the status of the submitter is useful. I'm not so
sure about including information about the "dkuug" list. Submitters
may have an interest only in the specific language that they are
requesting; also, that list does not have official status.
As for the "50 documents" requirement, that is included in the
working principles that we agreed to at our meeting. I think the
submitter is more likely to know where such documents might be found
than the RA or JAC would be. Mr. Clews is right that there are some
languages already represented in the code list that might not meet
this criterion. However, the working principles deal with requests
for additions or changes. We agreed at the meeting not to remove
languages (such as Sandawe) that were already in the list just because
they lacked the number of documents.