My original proposal was to NOT have a second ballot for "Sichuan Yi", since
that has been approved by 100 % of the voting members that voted, and that I
don't expect that percentage to change in a second ballot.

A second ballot would be needed for "Yi languages (other)" only, which did
not receive 100 %. I have invited JAC members to discuss this item. I do NOT
see any need to have another discussion of "Sichuan Yi".

In other words: If the JAC approves these procedures, the "important" ballot
is finished, and we can add "Sichuan Yi" to our list.

I am not quite sure how to interpret Rebecca's message: Do you find a need
for a formal second ballot of "Sichuan Yi"? If so, I shall gladly prepare
that immediately; I just thought it would be sufficient to do this by
"negative ballot": "if you don't say anything, you haven't changed your

I will obviously not let the "Yi languages (other)" issue delay the "Sichuan
Yi" issue.

Best regards,

Håvard Hjulstad    mailto:[log in to unmask]
  Solfallsveien 31
  NO-1430  Ås, Norway
  tel: +47 64963684  &  +47 64944233
  mob: +47 90145563

-----Original Message-----
From: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf
Of Rebecca S. Guenther
Sent: 2. oktober 2002 21:34
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Jean-Arthur Creff -- and Yi

My comments were mainly about procedure and sticking to what our document
says we need to follow.

Can you submit the evidence for the Yi languages (other) for the record?
It would be good to document that.

I guess Michael is concerned about holding this up any further. If
necessary to have further discussion we could do 2 separate votes, one on
Sichuan Yi and the other on Yi languages (other). I am also interested in
finishing this quickly, since we are working on a new edition of the MARC
codes and would like to include these in that document if they are