On 14 Nov 2008, at 11:30, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Because this is one of the most heavily fought battles that did not > result in a situation that is acceptable to all.
Well, since "mo" is now deprecated, re-naming it "ro-Cyrl" can be done without really taking any decision. It's essentially cosmetic. > The issue is that the people behind the mo.wikipedia are not living > anywhere near the areas involved and they are not native speakers/ > writers either. It would have been good when this thing had been > just deleted because the pain would have worn off. However, the > decision was that when a native speaker comes along, it can be > restarted... I don't understand. Is it to be deleted? Is it to be re-named? If not the former, then surely the latter. Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
