Print

Print


The TC46 group will have a proposal on new criteria before the next
teleconference. I hope to send it out this week. Maybe that will be a
basis for further discussion.

Rebecca

On Sun, 26 Mar 2006, Peter Constable wrote:

> I find myself in a quandary* over the Hyam and Gong requests. 
> 
>  
> 
> The requesters claimed to have 50 docs for Hyam, but not Gong; it's
> evident that they are requesting these to facilitate software
> localization. Applying the current rules strictly, I should probably
> vote in favour of Hyam but against Gong. I feel both should have an
> alpha-3 (but not alpha-2), but there are alpha-3 IDs for both in
> 639-3, and it's unclear to me if those that have the greatest concern
> for the future of 639-2 would consider it appropriate to include
> these. At this point, I feel my choices are one of the following:
> 
> 1.	vote with strict application of the rules (Hyam, yes; Gong, no)
> 2. vote in favour of both to satisfy the expressed need knowing that
> it might compromise future revised criteria for 639-2
> 3. wait to see how our TC46 members vote and simply vote the way that
> they do
> 4. wait until we have new criteria set for 639-2, delaying a decision
> on these even longer
> 
> * "In a quandary" is an apparently-obsolete expression replaced by the modern anomaly "conflicted", which I cannot bring myself to use.
> 
> Peter
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
>  
> 
> ________________________________
> 
> From: ISO JAC Voting Member List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Håvard Hjulstad
> Sent: Friday, March 24, 2006 6:46 AM
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: [JACVOTE] ISO 639 ballot 2006-4 - Hyam; Ham; Jaba
> 
>  
> 
> Dear JAC voting members,
> 
>  
> 
> ISO 639 ballot 2006-4: Hyam; Ham; Jaba
> 
>  
> 
> Please see original submission in the enclosed message. I am sorry that the issue has been on by desk too long before submitting a ballot.
> 
>  
> 
> During the discussion none of the members presented arguments against the inclusion of this item in the alpha-3 table of ISO 639-2. It is already in ISO 639-3.
> 
>  
> 
> Please vote by 14 April 2006.
> 
>  
> 
> Submitted by:
> 
>  
> 
> (A) Inclusion:
> 
> (1)
> 
> ___ I am in favour of including "Hyam; Ham; Jaba" in ISO 639-2.
> 
> ___ I am opposed to including "Hyam; Ham; Jaba" in ISO 639-2.
> 
>  
> 
> [Inclusion in the alpha-2 code is not balloted.]
> 
>  
> 
> (B) Identifier:
> 
> [Since the item is already in ISO 639-3, the identifier "jab" should be retained.]
> 
>  
> 
> (C) Names:
> 
> (2)
> 
> ___ I am in favour of the English names "Hyam; Ham; Jaba".
> 
> ___ I am opposed to the English names "Hyam; Ham; Jaba".
> 
>  
> 
> (3)
> 
> ___ I am in favour of the French names "hyam; ham; jaba".
> 
> ___ I am opposed to the French names "hyam; ham; jaba". 
> 
>  
> 
> (4)
> 
> ___ I am in favour of the indigenous names "Hyam; Ham; Jaba".
> 
> ___ I am opposed to the indigenous names "Hyam; Ham; Jaba". 
> 
>  
> 
> (D) Comments:
> 
>