I don't think that the IETF needs to do anything at all before we have
finalized this issue!

The process is based on consensus. That does not mean that we all need to
share the same opinion. We also don't need to share Michael's opinion in
everything for this to work properly.

I will close the issue of Hawaiian now, and I will shortly submit a proposal
for a ballot to be circulated by Infoterm.

Best regards,
Havard

-------------------------
Havard Hjulstad    mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Solfallsveien 31
  NO-1430  As, Norway
  tel: +47-64944233  &  +47-64963684
  mob: +47-90145563
  http://www.hjulstad.com/havard/
-------------------------

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Michael Everson
Sent: 15. mai 2002 09:26
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: WG: Submission for alpha-2 identifier for Hawaiian


At 09:31 +0200 2002-05-15, Christian Galinski wrote:
>
>So with full cautiousness, and nevertheless avoiding inflexibility
>just because of 'principles' (whose usefulness I do not deny at all,
>as I have - hopefully made clear), I would appreciate it, if we
>could vote in favour of an alpha-2 symbol for Hawaiian.

Then you (and I hear this from both representatives of the
"terminology camp") are saying you really are more interested in
principle than in practical preservation of data, and that we can
just go and stuff the agreement you have made. That being the case,
it seems that we in IETF will have to make other arrangements for
internet language tagging.
--
Michael Everson *** Everson Typography *** http://www.evertype.com