Hello Dovi, The language subcommittee has no official opinion on the issue; I'm disagreeing as a member of the community. A lack of comment is not consensus. Several discussions on the talk page went quiet without ever reaching agreement. A consensus is not reached simply because nobody recently commented, and your proposals aren't immune from objection.
Dovi Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > the proposal is quite clear in allowing [languages without fixed > written forms]. [...] Since interface is a requirement, no such wiki > will be created under the proposed policy until an acceptable > written form has been agreed upon. That is a contradiction. Dovi Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Classical languages are not "extinct" languages by any means. [...] > This is not an "issue", but a matter on which the community > (as reflected in the draft) clearly disagrees with the language > committee. The majority of classical languages are extinct, as defined as a lack of native usage. "Classical" is also a colloquial and controversial term, not used by language classification bodies. The types used by ISO 639-3 are living, extinct, ancient, historic, and constructed. The current draft does not reflect "community will", it reflects your June 2008 edits to the draft combined with a lack of real discussion. The only related discussion, about differentiating which constructed languages deserve wikis, concluded with your proposal to let the community decide every such case by vote. Dovi Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > As far as fictional languages, you are correct that there is no > rational explanation other than "community opposition." Exactly. > I personally having nothing against fictional languages either, but > *this* policy draft ultimately derives its legitimacy from community > collaboration and compromise. It reflects community will. The softening of the requirements, and your repetition of the phrase "community will", suggest to me a return to decision by vote, with all the consequences that entails (political voting, sockpuppetry, double-standards, etc). The subcommittee was formed specifically to get away from that, to form a fair and objective policy; what you suggest seems to be a policy that leaves everything up to voting. (And please stop repeating "community will". I am part of the community, and my little part of that will does not match what you say it does. You cannot claim "community will" to reject objections from community members.) Dovi Jacobs <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > It seems strange to me that, if you think things have not been > addressed, that you are raising your issues here rather than > at the proposal's talk page over the past several months. I have raised similar issues on the talk page before. Had you asked if there were further comments on the talk page rather than here, I would have responded there. -- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild) _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
