concerning Hebrew vs. Iwrith, I only remember that in the early years, when ISO 639-1 was finalized, we followed - according to the maintenance rules at that time - Israel's request. As this is probably 25 years ago, I can only rely on my memory. Maybe Håvard Hjulstad has a better (physical and electronic) memory? -----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: ISO 639 Joint Advisory Committee [mailto:[log in to unmask]] Im Auftrag von Peter Constable
Gesendet: Montag, 30. Januar 2012 07:54
An: [log in to unmask]
Betreff: Re: 2011-001 proposal for Neo "neu"
I'm not sure rapid processing of requests is the best idea for ISO 639-3, even in the case of requests that are simple to evaluate. The reason is that, due to the large inventory of languages being catalogued and that there is not always a high level of confidence for all 7000, the number of changes that may be made during the year is significant. That could easily mean changes being published on a weekly basis. Indeed, I see that there were 181 change requests during 2011, which could mean publishing changes several times a week. That would be rather impractical for the RA. But also, for implementers using the standard, a high frequency of changes could be too disruptive.
When ISO 639-3 was being developed, a proposal for how maintenance would be handled was prepared by the candidate RA and that was made available to the JAC. That proposal included a regular but not overly frequent schedule for publication of updates. If I recall, initial thinking was for updates to be published on a bi-yearly schedule, and I think that would be a good schedule. Of course, publishing twice years would add some overhead for the RA; they would have to comment on whether that would be feasible.
Sent: Thursday, January 26, 2012 9:49 AM
Subject: Re: 2011-001 proposal for Neo "neu"
1-I want to write that I somewhat share Michael Everson's dissatisfaction concerning ISO 639-3/RA delays to answer requests. But these often too longs delays are in fact due to the procedure adopted, that accumulates all requests received during the year, and makes all examinations and decisions during the beginning of the following year. As this procedure is not described in the normative text of ISO 639-3, it is possible to change it, so that easy and quasi-evident requests could be answered rapidly after their reception, letting more sophisticated ones for examinations and decisions as is done now.
2-I am also dissatisfied by the way voting procedures and delays of ISO 639/RA-JAC do not really follow the normative rules contained in ISO 639. For example, concerning the last votes concerning the question of Montenegrin, not only was the second round of votes closed far later than written in the normative text, but in fact the official results of both rounds, including nominative individuals votes of each ISO 639/RA-JAC voting members have never been published. So that it was impossible to one of our voting colleagues to convince himself that, contrarily to what he considered as "obviously evident", at least one voting member changed her mind between the two rounds.
3-i am also very dissatisfied that no official answer (excepted a very partial internal message) seems to have been given to the questions of Maren Kresse relayed by a message of Debbie Garside dated 08/12/2011. I am myself very curious to have some answers (specially concerning the change of the ISO 639-1 code element representing the hebrew language name from "iw" to "he", because in my opinion "iw", based on the romanized form "Iwrith" of the autonym of the considered language name was a far better choice that "he", derived from the english/french name of this language).
In my opinion, considering that all questions are about ISO 639-1 alpha-2 code elements, Christian Galinsky in his double quality of representative of ISO 639-1/RA and of president of the ISO 639/RA-JAC should have the task to answer these questions.
Le 20 janv. 2012 à 20:55, ISO639-3 a écrit :
> I have just returned from an overseas trip and am in the phase of processing ISO 639-3 changes from the review process for 2011. I hope to have the final tables posted by February 3rd, although there may be a few that are finalized later.
> Please be assured that your code for Neo has been approved, and that you can use the code you requested.
> Forgive me if I have been slow to answer this question for you.
> 7500 W. Camp Wisdom Rd.
> On Wed, 18 Jan 2012 20:14:18 +0000
>> I sent this 10 days ago and have not had a response.
>> That request was made in March 2011. Seriously, how long does it take for requests to be processed?
>> As the registrar of ISO 15924 I have to say that the responsiveness of ISO 639 is really not very good. I know that the volume of items is not commensurate between the two standards, but nevertheless, my request that Neo be given a code was made TEN AND A HALF MONTHS ago, and this is just too much time.
>> I understand that there are complex issues that affect some scripts, particularly splits and mergers and issues with macrolanguages. But holding up straightforward registrations like Neo (or Katharevousa which was requested 2009-07-17 (TWO AND A HALF YEARS ago!) because other elements are not mature enough for decision making is simply unacceptable.
>> I will shortly be applying for code elements for Jèrriais and Guernésiais (the Norman languages of Jersey and Guernsey) and for a code element for at least one more conlang. When I apply for these, I mean I actually NEED codes for them for bibliographic purposes.
>> Please, Registration Authority, split up the list to separate anything that is problematic from anything that is straightforward, and publish updates to ISO 639-3. In particular, please prioritize all of the new code elements requested over ANY other change.
>> And please do this by the end of February at the latest. This work isn't that difficult. Even if 70% of what is on your list is problematic, that does not justify failing to publish the other 30%.