(from the CLDR-users archives; source: CLDR-users index for May 2008)
From: "Don Osborn"
To: "'Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven'", <firstname.lastname@example.org>
Subject: RE: Vetting 2 weeks?
Date: Tue, 6 May 2008 06:35:26 -0400
This sounds like a reasonable idea, esp. as we get more locales for languages whose experts may not all have optimal access to communications / connections.
> -----Original Message-----
> From: email@example.com On Behalf Of Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven
> Sent: Tuesday, May 06, 2008 4:11 AM
> To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Subject: Vetting 2 weeks?
> is there a chance the next release of CLDR will have 2 weeks for the vetting
> Leaving aside things I should have fixed in the data submission period (part
> of the learning process) I do find that ~1 week is too short for a sufficent
> vetting period and communication with other vetters.
> But perhaps I am alone in this belief.
> What do others think?
> Jeroen Ruigrok van der Werven <asmodai(-at-)in-nomine.org> / asmodai
> イェルーン ラウフロック ヴァン デル ウェルヴェン
< RE: Is anybody controlling the lingual quality out there? (CLDR) | CLDR-users | Locales, macrolanguages & clusters >