Dear Havard,
Dear All,
Hoping to close this point, and in confirmation of my position concerning your point A, the following exchange shows:
(i) On Tuesday 12 June 20011 (so clearly after March 2011), Debbie Garside writes to the ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee: " From discussions I had during the ISO TC 37 meeting in Korea, it appears that I should be a voting member. I believe I am still listed as an observer. I would be grateful if someone could update my status on the list and include me in the ballots." 
(ii) As nobody commented, adhered, objected or confirmed this message, I wrote in the point 2 of my message to the JAC list, dated 7 december 2011, that the inclusion of a representative of the ISO 639-6/RA as a voting member within the composition of the ISO 639/RA-JAC was simply not possible, without a joint revision of ISO 639-6 and ISO 639-4.
(ii) As nobody ever commented or objected to my message, I clearly conclude that It was accepted, so that the ISO 639-6/RA is not a voting member within the ISO 639/RA-JAC until a joint revision of ISO 639-4 and ISO 639-6.
Bien cordialement.
Gérard Lang
Le 7 déc. 2011 à 09:46, Gérard Lang-Marconnet a écrit :

> Dear All,
> 
> 0-I am really delighted that we have a new occasion to create code elements concerning the language name "Montenegrin/monténegrin" inside ISO 639.
> Moreover, the present message gives me the occasion to answer simultaneously to both questions included inside the preceding message.
> 
> 1-I am more than fully on the same line that Debbie Garside concerning the language name "Montenegin/Monténegrin". It is every day more evident that your (our ?) preceding NEGATIVE vote concerning the creation of the alpha-2 ISO 639-1 code element "me"  concerning this language name, having official status in the UN member state MONTENEGRO/MONTENEGRO, is generally considered as ridiculous, when we have alpha-2 code elements like "sr" (and also [scc], srp), "hr" (and also [scr], hrv) , "bs" (and also bos) for three others language names derived from the old generic "sh" Serbo-Croatian language name, all three having official status in the respective UN member states SERBIA/SERBIE, CROATIA/CROATIE and BOSNIA AND HERZEGOVINA/BOSNIE-HERZEGOVINE.  It  also  seems that Montenegrin is somewhat  more distinct of Serbian than Bosnian.
> So, I have a POSITIVE vote concerning the creation of an alpha-2 ISO 639-1 code element ( it seems that "me" is the best possible choice) and also an alpha-3 ISO 639-3 code element (it seems that "mno" is a possible choice) for the language name "Montenegrin/monténegrin".
> 
> 2-On another side I can absolutely not agree with Debbie's proposition to become a voting member inside our ISO 639/RA-JAC.
> The essential aim of the JAC is to apply the normative texts of the 6 voted parts of ISO 639, notably the clauses relative to the ISO 639/RA-JAC. These causes are:
> -Annex A.3 of ISO 639-1;
> -Annex A.3 of ISO 639-2;
> -Annex A.1.2 and A.1.3 of ISO 639-3;
> -Annex A.2 of ISO 639-4;
> -Annex B.1.3 and B.1.4 of ISO 639-6.
> And the normative clauses of ISO 639 on this point are very clear and precise.Particularly  Annex B.1.3 and B.1.4 of ISO 639-6:2009 do absolutely not modify the composition of the ISO 639/RA-JAC by introducing inside this composition a new member, representative of the ISO 639-6/RA. This is also clearly resulting of the text of Annex 2.1 of ISO 639-4:2010 that is posterior to the publication of part 6. So, as long as these normative texts are in vigor, that is always today's case as far as I know, the ISO 639/RA-JAC composition has 9 members as follows:
> -A representant for ISO 639-1 RA: Christian GALINSKY;
> -A representative of ISO 639-2 (and-5) RA: Did the library of Congress nominate a successor for Rebecca GUENTHER ?
> -A representative of ISO 639-3 RA: Melinda LYONS;
> -Three representatives of ISO TC 37: Gerhard BUDIN, Peter CONSTABLE, Margaret STEWART;
> -Three representatives of TC 46: Gérard LANG, Eeva MURTOMAA and  Glenn PATTON.
> 
> Both TC 37 and TC 46 may nominate substitute representative (François DEMAY is nominated as substitute for me).
> No other person can vote inside the JAC. ISO 639, and specially part 6, are explicit on the fact that no representative of ISO 639-6 RA is member of the ISO 639/RA-JAC.
> So that Debbie Garside, that is neither a direct JAC member, nor (as far as i know) a substitute member, but only one of the (up to) 5 technical experts that are non-voting observers of the JAC (What is the official today's list of technical experts ?. Let me remind that I proposed the nomination of David DALBY, that is one of the best specialists of these questions, and whose works are in the bibliography of three (4,5 and 6) parts of ISO 639, that is a unique case in this perspective, as one of these technical experts), cannot be today considered as one of the 9 voting JAC member.
> Even if I am happy to see that Debbie Garside's position on the point relative to montenegrin is in the same orientation that the mine, I am obliged to consider that her message is only the position of  an ISO 639 technical expert (exactly the same as for Michael Everson's position) and cannot be considered as a vote inside the JAC procedures.
> 
> 3-Moreover, let me add the following remark concerning voting procedure inside the JAC. In my opinion, we should be stricly conform with the procedures described in the text of Annexes of ISO 639 I listed in my point 2-; so that every vote inside the JAC  should be opened by the JAC president (as far as I know, Christian GALINSKY is today's president, for two years, as rotative president  representing ISO 639-1, after  the rotative presidency of Rebecca GUENTHER, representing ISO 639-2) or maybe by the JAC secretary ( I understand that Havard HJULSTAD  is still in charge ?).
> The main rules are that every JAC member has a vote (voting is mandatory), and must vote within one month after the opening of the vote, and that a second vote (with the same procedures) is necessary in the case that the first vote is not unanimous (i.e.: At least 5 POSITIVE votes, and no NEGATIVE vote).
> 
> Bien cordialement.
> Gérard Lang
> 
> Le 2 déc. 2011 à 21:58, Debbie Garside a écrit :
> 
>> I think it should be included in ISO 639-3.
>> ) 
>> Best wishes
>> 
>> Debbie
>> 
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: ISO639-3 [mailto:[log in to unmask]] 
>> Sent: 02 December 2011 20:02
>> To: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee; Debbie Garside
>> Subject: Re: Montenegrin - Second ballot soon
>> 
>> Dear JAC members,
>> 
>> I have had yet another request to add Montenegrin to the ISO 639. Do any of you have thoughts about reconsidering the status of Montenegrin?
>> 
>> Melinda Lyons
>> ISO 639-3 RA
>> SIL International
>> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.
>> Dallas, TX 75236
>> 
>> On Tue, 12 Jul 2011 09:39:48 +0100
>> Debbie Garside <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> Hi
>>> 
>>> From discussions I had during the ISO TC37 meetings in Korea, it appears that I should be a voting member.  I believe I am still listed as an observer.  I would be grateful if someone could update my status on the list and include me In any  ballots.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best wishes
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Debbie.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
>>> Sent: 12 July 2011 08:54
>>> To: [log in to unmask]
>>> Subject: SV: Montenegrin - Second ballot soon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear members of the JAC,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Just briefly the “history”:
>>> 
>>> The first ballot was initiated on 2010-04-30 and closed on 2010-05-28. There was a clear majority against including Montenegrin in ISO 639-1 and in ISO 639-2.
>>> 
>>> Our rule is that if the first ballot isn’t unanimous, a second ballot is initiated, in which the majority decides. Since the majority in this case was against the inclusion, there probably shouldn’t be a need for a second ballot (since “unanimously against” and “majority against” amount to the same thing).
>>> 
>>> Nevertheless, the second ballot was initiated on 2010-06-09 with a closing data 2010-06-25. I see now in my records that on 2010-07-07 one voting member still hadn’t cast a vote, and technically that vote hasn’t been concluded. However, regardless how that last voter would have voted, a clear majority would have been against the inclusion.
>>> 
>>> I could/should have closed the ballot on or shortly after 2010-07-07 and publicized the result. That was an omission on my part; sorry. I have noted in the database that 2011-07-12 is the “date of publication of final result”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> However, in the current situation in Balkan I would not be surprised if there were to be a need to reconsider the “Serbo-Croatian languages” (or “Yugoslavian languages”). There were also comments suggesting that during the ballots. This may become an interesting test of the balance between purely linguistic criteria and language policy (or political) criteria. We have been balancing before, but I am not sure that we have been confronted with issues that are similar enough to be used as “template”.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The issue of an alpha-2 identifier has been raised (and will be raised again). In this particular case we would be “allowed to” assign an alpha-2 identifier at the same time as we assign an alpha-3 identifier, without breaking any of our rules and promises.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> The JAC hasn’t really discussed whether there should be a “quarantine” period for items that have once been rejected. One year seems to be a rather short period, but there may be good reasons.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I am acting here purely as JAC secretary, i.e. I don’t have an opinion about “accept” or “reject”. I am just mapping the “battle field” or “sand box”. 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Best regards,
>>> Håvard
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> --------------------
>>> 
>>> Håvard Hjulstad
>>> 
>>> prosjektleder / Project Manager
>>> 
>>> Standard Norge / Standards Norway
>>> 
>>> [log in to unmask]
>>> 
>>> http://www.standard.no/
>>> 
>>> --------------------
>>> 
>>>  Tenk på miljøet før du skriver ut denne e-posten. / Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> -----Opprinnelig melding-----
>>> Fra: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] På vegne av ISO639-3
>>> Sendt: 11. juli 2011 22:22
>>> Til: [log in to unmask]
>>> Emne: Re: Montenegrin - Second ballot soon
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Dear Members of the JAC,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> I have had another request to assign a code to Montenegrin. I have looked through the various files of the ISO639-3 account, and the last thing I have are some messages marked "Montenegrin--second ballot soon". I cannot find the final result. Could someone let me know what the result of the second ballot was (I assume it happened in July or August of 2010, after Joan was no longer actively doing ISO 639-3).
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Thank you very much for your help. I will need to answer the new request.
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Sincerely,
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> Melinda Lyons 
>>> 
>>> ISO 639-3 RA
>>> 
>>> SIL International
>>> 
>>> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.
>>> 
>>> Dallas, TX 75236
>>> 
>>> 
>>> 
>>> On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:04:13 +0200
>>> 
>>> Michael Everson < <mailto:[log in to unmask]> [log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> On 8 Jun 2010, at 08:13, Håvard Hjulstad wrote:
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>>> I expect that all relevant information relating to the issue of encoding Montenegrin in ISO 639 has by now been presented. A second ballot will be circulated tomorrow morning. Any remaining input should be submitted by the end of this day.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> My input: Sufficient evidence has not been adduced to indicate that "Montenegrin" is other than a synonym for Serbian. "Unreliable" discussion in the English Wikipedia article suggests the same, and moreover indicates that the taxonomy is controversial in Montenegro itself.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Had I a vote, I would vote not to add a separate code for Montenegrin at this time.
>>> 
>>>> 
>>> 
>>>> Michael Everson *  <http://www.evertype.com/> http://www.evertype.com/
>>> 
>