Thoughts on working with the Emoji Subcommittee (was Re: Thoughts on Emoji Selection Process)

[Julian Wels via Unicode]

I think Blissymbols could be a separate, well-defined script in Unicode
because they are already more or less well defined by their respective
groups. This community of interest can lobby for these implementations as a
whole instead of multiple individuals separately.

Emoji were born in quite a different way and are in no way as well defined
as Blissymbols are for example. There is no self-governing forum of people
to discuss the future of emoji and forthcoming additions. Obviously,
because they gained international attention just as they were added to
Unicode-Standard but also maybe because "working with the Emoji
Subcommittee" is rather hard.

The conversation about Blissymbols made me think about a solution on how to
solve the current communication problem, although it might be a bit radical:
Why not remove the authority to propose new emojis from the ESC and give it
to a dedicated, public Emoji-Community. Such a community could formulate
additional guidelines for upcoming emojis, draft roadmaps and send a
quarterly proposal to the ESC for individual approval. Unicode Members
could still express ideas and exercise power through participating in the
community and appointing people to the ESC.

[image: diagram.png]

This change would remove pressure and workload from the ESC while retaining
most of the control, especially the last word, but the Emoji-Standart would
benefit from a dedicated community.

I'm just putting this out there. What are your thoughts on this? Do you
think this is unreasonable, or achievable?

Julian ��

On Tue, Aug 21, 2018 at 3:25 PM James Kass via Unicode <unicode at unicode.org>
wrote:

> Rebecca Bettencourt wrote,
>
> > Why don't we just get Blissymbolics encoded as it is?
>
> The Pipeline still has the Everson proposal from 1998, but Blissymbols
> are still in the Pipeline.
>
> Scripts Encoding Initiative
> ( http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/sei/ )
>  page,
> http://linguistics.berkeley.edu/sei/scripts-not-encoded.html
> shows Blissymbols and links the same proposal.
>
> Blissymbolics Communication International,
> http://www.blissymbolics.org/
> will likely produce the next proposal.
>
> Both Scripts Encoding Initiative and Blissymbolics Communication
> International depend upon funding.
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180824/6c82c3fb/attachment.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: diagram.png
Type: image/png
Size: 52833 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://unicode.org/pipermail/unicode/attachments/20180824/6c82c3fb/attachment.png>