4 Votes

[Yury Tarasievich]

On 05/17/2015 10:27 PM, Erkki I Kolehmainen wrote:
> Sorry, but it seems to me that you believe to be
> absolutely right (which I am in no expert
> position to challenge), but in that case you
> should be able to convince other language
> experts and users to support your position and
> stop insisting that you should be able to
> override earlier approved values just because
> you say so. The purpose of the vetting process
> is to produce generally acceptable values, and
> the tickets complement it effectively.

The form might be better, but I can identify 
with the guy, nevertheless. This is the kind of 
a problem sort of built-in in the cldr process. 
Several years ago I just stopped investing the 
time in the native locale in cldr, because of 
the same issues -- fields being pre-filled on 
some nebulous/undisclosed basis, and then it's 
sort of irrevokable decision. Vetting, yeah, yeah.

-Yury