Which creates the situation we are in, according to you, all members of the language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issues that I and others raised, but since only one out of the 10+ people responded, therefore they must have all considered all the issues and have no comment, and the decision is unanimous. I am not going to debate with you how this doesnt sound very logical, It is sufficient to say you are now finding out that there were at least 1 objecting and 4 inactive members after you declared the decision 'unanimous'.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>wrote: > Hoi, > As I have been saying before, the language committee works on the basis > that > if only one person objects, something does not move forward. Many subjects > are raised on our mailing list where people are notified that something is > going to be done and when nobody objects within a certain time frame, the > proposal is moved forward. > Thanks, > GerardM > > 2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey <[email protected]> > > > So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the link > > to, the only discussion about Masry I found was: > > > > > > > http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic > > > > When I raised the issue of Masry on this mailing list, raising what I > > thought was valid concerns, and at the same times others were raising > such > > concerns on meta, Gerard's response was, and I quote: > > > > I have indicated that the language > > > committee was unanimous in deciding that the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia > > > request was eligible. > > > > > > > As indicated earlier, all members of the language > > > committee were explicitly asked to consider the issue that you raise. > The > > > consequence of this is that in my opinion you refuse people the freedom > > to > > > work on a project in their language, languages that are eligible under > > the > > > language policy of the WMF. > > > > > > > > Per above link, I see a discussion only between two members (Gerard and > > Jon). I am pretty confused how did that constitute a 'unanimous > decision'. > > Wouldn't that be a gross mis-characterization? > > > > Wouldn't refusal to point me to archived discussion *then* > > mis-characterizing what really happened on the list be grounds for some > > kind > > of audit? > > > > Forgive me If I am wrong, but that is the only information I have to work > > on, if I am wrong, I apologize to Gerard. > > > > Best Regards, > > Muhammad Alsebaey > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > [email protected] > > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > [email protected] > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
