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”.
prosjektleder / Project Manager
Standard Norge / Standards Norway
Tenk på miljøet før du skriver ut denne e-posten. / Please consider the environment before printing this e-mail.
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.
ISO 639-3 RA
7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.
Dallas, TX 75236
On Tue, 8 Jun 2010 10:04:13 +0200
>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/