Avoiding Problems by Avoiding Decisions

[George Staikos]

On Friday 14 May 2004 01:14, Andreas Pour wrote:
> >    If this is how we operate that list, I have some additions to make.  I
> > can think of a group of 3 million people who are not being called what
> > they ask to be called.  I can also think of another x million who are not
> > being called what they ask to be called.
>
> Really?  Who?  It seems to me that any group which has its own language /
> culture / country should be represented in the locale choice, provided
> there is a translation.  Irrespective of what the UN (or by derivation the
> ISO) has to say about it.

   The translation is not all there is to it.  Anyhow, the 
group/country/whatever is definitely very real and I have hard evidence to 
prove it as much as anything else.  I will reveal it when necessary.

> >    How do you know this?  Hard numbers please.  x% of population of
> > country Y, for x > 50, claim that they are being called Y but wish to be
> > called Z. Supporting evidence is required.  If you're so much better than
> > the UN, prove it and I will gladly accept.  If you have another source
> > that is so much better than the UN, prove it and I will gladly accept.
>
> I think relying on the recognized government is an adequate step.  Now

   To quote your argument (think SSL), how do you know that those people are 
authorized by their government to declare that?  Don't speak for that 
country's i18n team.  Let them decide if it is incorrect.  Anyhow, no need to 
answer, I'm not going to continue this thread.

> > > Here's a test, though:  why don't you propose Iraq be renamed to "Iraq,
> > > Occupied Territories of", mutatis mutandi for Afghanistan and Chechnya,
> > > and see how far you get?
> >
> >   What part of "I don't care" don't you understand?
>
> Your suggestion was that the ISO is an open standard which you might be
> able to influence.  If you don't care, if what you say is correct or not,

   You can influence it too if you care to do so.  I'm personally involved in 
ISO, actually, though not with anything to do with 3166.

> then not only shouldn't I take you seriously, you shouldn't ask to be taken
> seriously.

   You're completely missing the point _still_.  The content is not an issue 
for me, it is the procedure.  Our procedure is absurd and undefined at 
present.  I proposed a definition that is, in my opinion, not absurd.  All I 
have heard so far is that people want to be able to dictate content and that 
they don't like my procedure because it does not allow for them to dictate 
content.  I furthermore submit that we are incapable of properly dictating 
content.

> I think the argument that your position is not political, and others are,
> is almost always disingenuous.  Every position is political, in this case
> the question is merely which political body you hold authoritative, which
> in itself is a political decision.

   -I- -don't- -have- -a- -position-.  I don't care about the arguments that 
people are having.  I just care about the procedure.  See the Subject: of 
this email.  For the (n+1)th time, I also don't think that KDE should have 
positions on this.  If they do, then we must accept the political positions 
of all KDE developers in their code, email, images, webpages, etc, in which 
case I think there are certain events from the past that KDE must apologize 
for.

  I'm trying to solve a problem and avoid conflict, and all I hear is people 
on both sides saying that they don't want to avoid the conflict or come to a 
solution because they want to win, now and in the future.  Well it's 
partially my job to deal with these problems, and that's just not acceptable 
to me.  I also feel that the fact that we have people trying to mix their 
personal politics in the KDE project [perhaps because of the power they gain 
from it] reflects very poorly on the project and the people involved.  Now 
who's disingenuous?

-- 
George Staikos
KDE Developer				http://www.kde.org/
Staikos Computing Services Inc.		http://www.staikos.net/