[arch-general] Country Name (ISO-3116) Issues

[Loui Chang]

On Sun 01 Jul 2012 21:23 +0200, Tom Gundersen wrote:
> On Sun, Jul 1, 2012 at 7:28 PM, Loui Chang <louipc.ist at gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Sun 01 Jul 2012 23:08 +0800, Zero, Chien-An Cho wrote:
> >> Hello,
> >>
> >> First of all, I am sorry to bring political issues to here. I have
> >> been using ArchLinux for years, deployed on many servers, though I'm
> >> not joining the community until now. The recent changes to the
> >> ArchLinux webpages (ex. Downloads, Mirror Status) is really offending
> >> Taiwanese people. I would like to bring up this issue, and preferably
> >> to resolve this issue.
> >>
> >> I have posted this message on the forum:
> >> https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=144315 . The moderator
> >> suggested me to post on arch-general, so here it is. :)
> >> There is also a bug tracking issue submitted by other Taiwanese user
> >> that I'm requesting for reopen here:
> >> https://bugs.archlinux.org/task/30444
> >>
> >> The following text is the same as the post on forum, except a few
> >> modification to make text smoother.
> >>
> >> The recent changes on the download page named Taiwan as Taiwan,
> >> Province of China, which is not reflecting the truth that Taiwan is a
> >> independent country which having its own government. I think this
> >> might be caused by following the ISO-3166 country name list standard.
> >> However, I don't think ISO-3166 is a good list when it comes to the
> >> country name.
> >>
> >> Many open source communities have encountered this problem before.
> >> Most of them understand that ISO-3166 is not really a neutral list
> >> that we all hope for, and thus made switch to a separate maintained
> >> country list. For example, FreeBSD[1], Rails[2], Debian[3]. Many big
> >> commercial entities also opt not to use "Taiwan, PRC" in their country
> >> list, like: Apple[4], IBM[5], also try Google, Facebook, Twitter, et
> >> cetra. A possible solution might be using the country name list from
> >> ICU[6].
> >>
> >> I believed the ArchLinux is trying to expand its user-base around the
> >> world, so a neutral country name list would be the best for the
> >> benefit of all of us, ArchLinux developers and users. As a Taiwanese
> >> ArchLinux user, I'm really happy to see that user base of ArchLinux is
> >> growing in Taiwan. Some educational institutions provide mirrors site
> >> in Taiwan, Wiki localized in Traditional Chinese in the recent years.
> >> I sincerely hope this issue can be resolved as soon as possible. Let's
> >> keep the issue simple and not flaming it, thanks.
> >>
> >> References:
> >>
> >> [1] FreeBSD: http://www.freebsd.org/cgi/query-pr.cgi?pr=138672
> >> [2] Rails: http://www.koziarski.net/archives/2008/9/24/countries-and-controversies/
> >> [3] Debian: http://lists.debian.org/debian-devel/2004/04/msg00798.html
> >> [4] Apple: http://www.apple.com/choose-your-country/
> >> [5] IBM: http://www.ibm.com/planetwide/select/selector.html
> >> [6] ICU: http://source.icu-project.org/repos/icu/icu/trunk/source/data/region/en.txt
> >
> > I agree. I'm very disappointed by the response of Dave Reisner on that
> > bug report. The reality is that the PRC does not have jurisdiction or
> > claim over Taiwan. When standards are false they should not be followed.
> >
> > Dave: Can you educate yourself a little about the Republic of China and
> > Taiwan vs the People's Republic of China, before making a final
> > decision? Thank you.
> 
> This has been discussed a number of times. While no one has so far
> questioned the validity of the bug, the consensus seems to be that
> this should be taken upstream [0].
> 
> I hope it is clear that no offense is intended, and that we do not
> want to make any political judgments (and hence defer to the UN).
> 
> [0]: <http://www.iso.org/iso/updates_on_iso_3166.html>.

Gimme a break. These kind of political issues aren't solved by "taking
it upstream". Since when are politicians or people under the influence
of politics known for their outstanding adherence to logic and reason?
It's not such a simple technical thing that you can "take it upstream."
If you have any idea how the ISO works you will wake up to the fact of
how ridiculous that suggestion is. If Taiwan (ROC) can't get it to
happen, what do you expect of us?

But as has been suggested maybe Arch should choose a different upstream
for this kind of information. Please open your mind a little, a false
standard is no standard at all.