CLDR survey / Polish keyboard (was: Re: CLDR)

[Marcel Schneider via CLDR-Users]

On 05/09/18 14:59 Mark Davis ☕️ via CLDR-Users wrote:
> 
[…]
> they are so greedy
>
> Ad hominem or (ad societatem) remarks are rarely productive, and rarely an accurate reflection of reality;

That is the one phrase I’d redacted first if I was to remove off-list-style shorthand topoi. 
I was afraid that it could hurt when posted here, while I only wished to make aware of 
the way management decisions may end up reflecting badly on whatever corporate image.

The idea is that CLDR data shouldn’t be to wait for a volunteer coming along to correct.
Rather the process should be set up in a way it succeeds in say 2 years from scratch.

Now we’re to determine whether the (human and financial) effort implied is not considered
worthwile. That could be because end-users getting inaccurate data displayed are not deemed
to pay attention; or because public language offices are the premium contributers expected, 
and vendors are only helping out at failure. [Here I’m censoring myself so as not to get ad
corpus again, nor ad hominem as I did necessarily off-list when giving details about a contact
with a language office.]

Perhaps the most useful thing would be to simply send e-mails to vendors asking them to devote 
more means to CLDR survey, making aware that the data isn’t meeting obvious quality standards.

Is it naive to believe that an e-mail to this or the other list may suffice for that purpose?

> one reason I seldom look at unicode at unicode.org.

I publicly apologize for any ad hominem comment I’d ever posted on a list. I sincerely regret not 
to stay technical, having trouble depersonalizing human affairs. I’m always at risk of getting off 
the road while trying to understand and to figure out how and by whom problems could be fixed.
Perhaps I shouldn’t focus on that. Probably I’d better just do the job as it lies out.

Eg when a correctly spelled name was suddenly misspelled despite a vetter hinting that the name
was correct, there would be no point in finding out how that could happen, but only in correcting 
the error (two years later). But the evidence is that such things can happen only because vetters 
are not given enough time to assess a spelling as accurate. Eg by that time it was already sufficient 
to look up the proposed spelling in French Wikipédia, for getting a sentence in the first place 
explaining why that spelling does not apply. 

Even now, a number of errors remained uncorrected because vetters did not have enough worktime 
while survey was plain open. I myself ended up cutting down CLDR survey time while corrections 
didn’t get an echo and it was unclear whether they were useful, and this way left typos I’d made in ST.
When vetting phase was on, everybody did a great job but it was too late to correct the typos, given 
ST is partly read-only then, which from my point of view is not good. But no matter, I’d made and left 
the typos.

Best regards,

Marcel