<html>
<head>
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
</head>
<body text="#000000" bgcolor="#FFFFFF">
<p>Numbers are not political. Using the name of a place in the
languuage of a place is slightly more political. using an American
derived name for a place that is not in the USA is definitely
political. America/Montreal is totally insulting after two
American invasions.<br>
</p>
<br>
<div class="moz-cite-prefix">On 2018-10-09 22:27, Tim Parenti wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote type="cite"
cite="mid:CAFpi07yoj39F=XKgeXjq0JifS8SM+kEPC2CSyi07sFzkRH2ajA@mail.gmail.com">
<meta http-equiv="content-type" content="text/html; charset=utf-8">
<div dir="ltr">
<div dir="ltr">This may not be based in anything more than my
understanding from having seen these discussions play out time
and time again over the years… but I do think there's
something more worth stating, if only for the mailing list
archives:</div>
<div dir="ltr"><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">It seems our general "consensus" sentiment toward
these sorts of requests is that they're an extension of <font
face="monospace, monospace">tz</font>'s goal to be
descriptive, not prescriptive. This at least matches the
similar discussion at CLDR: <a
href="https://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/10185#comment:2"
moz-do-not-send="true">https://unicode.org/cldr/trac/ticket/10185#comment:2</a><br>
</div>
<div dir="ltr">
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Yes, our choice of English is arbitrary, but it is
historical and there is a large (although certainly not
insurmountable) amount of inertia behind it. Since it is
regarded as a <i>lingua franca</i>, there are a wide body of
sources with wide-ranging opinions on matters of
geopolitics, which <span
style="font-family:monospace,monospace">tz</span> can
leverage in helping decide how to record things. We, then,
aim only to record rough consensus, much like other
international standards organizations do, and attempt to
leave the politics themselves to the politicians.</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>Of course, even this can be regarded as a political
stance, and in some sense, it is. And there are those who
will still interpret that as <i>the maintainers</i> taking a
side on any given geopolitical issue… but that can't really
be helped. In cases of conflict, even the most
meticulously-crafted "neutral" deferential position will
naturally reflect the biases of some group of "others" — in
our case, the biases of the news organizations and other
entities to whom we defer in choosing to source our data.
As long as we are upfront about that (and I think, for the
most part, we are), then we are meeting the broader stated
goal of being "useful even if not 100% accurate".</div>
<div><br>
</div>
<div>And so, we do what we can to be diplomatic when the
inevitable arises. (Which can, as Paul points out, include
filtering duplication to ensure quality of discussion.) But
if the necessity of that diplomacy grates on anyone, in
either direction, then perhaps this isn't the list for
them. ;)</div>
<div><br>
</div>
</div>
<div>
<div dir="ltr" class="gmail_signature"
data-smartmail="gmail_signature">--<br>
Tim Parenti<br>
</div>
</div>
<br>
</div>
<br>
<div class="gmail_quote">
<div dir="ltr">On Tue, 9 Oct 2018 at 16:08, <<a
href="mailto:Paul.Koning@dell.com" moz-do-not-send="true">Paul.Koning@dell.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
</div>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0
.8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><br>
<br>
> On Oct 9, 2018, at 3:15 PM, Michael Douglass <<a
href="mailto:mikeadouglass@gmail.com" target="_blank"
moz-do-not-send="true">mikeadouglass@gmail.com</a>>
wrote:<br>
> <br>
> So soon after the last one.<br>
> <br>
> Is it still too soon to suggest opaque ids again?<br>
<br>
Yes.<br>
<br>
paul<br>
</blockquote>
</div>
</blockquote>
<br>
</body>
</html>