I think there will be people that won't use this fu'ivla, people that like
this, and people who are against this method. I would like to know the
opinions of the last two groups (since the first one won't be affected
if we upload this to jbovlaste, for example).
I find myself vehemently opposed to these proposals. Some of the reasons I've stated earlier in this or another related thread, but to summarize.
1) There is cultural bias all over the language. Whatever bias is perceived as a result of autonymous vocabulary creation isn't IMHO much of a big deal in comparison.
2) The ISO approach yields hundreds of words which are to me frustratingly similar.
3) The ISO approach can't help you with defunct countries, so the Inca Empire will presumably remain {la tauantinsuius}.
4) The ISO approach can't help you with ethnicities, so a Buryat will presumably be {*prenrburiada} or {*se natmrburiada} or {*burdiada}, while the Buryat language will carry an ISO code.
5) The ISO presumably had different goals in developing the codes than Lojbanistan does in developing vocabulary.
I laud all the work y'all have put into generating this vocabulary. Leo just asked for opinions, so I gave one.
I don't have enough time to devote to Lojban these days to generate 250 autonymous words for languages & put them into jbovlaste, or even to decide why they should be brivla rather than cmevla. Shrug. But it's a fascinating discussion.
mu'o mi'e komfo,amonan