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. Margaret Stewart -----Original Message----- 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.