On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <[email protected]> wrote: > I did't want to come back to Belarus Wikipedia case, but at that time > I have found quite easily 2 good experts. One from Univ. of Warsaw, > vice-head o Belaruss literature department and one from Univ of Oxford > (an emeritus professor, specializing in Belaruss politics and > history). It wasn't very difficulit to ask them and get the answers - > quite long and IMHO quite professional.I asked at that time if there > is any interst for LangComm in reading this. The answer was "no", as > at that time the decission was already taken, the situation was quite > hot and arguments showing that the decission wasn't so clever were not > listen simply by default. The stinky egg was already broken and > members of LangComm were simply trying not to smell it :-) > > I don't think that such kind of experts good in one case only should > be members of LangComm. It probably doesn't make sense. But it does > make sense to find them for specific purposes and then ask questions > before making final decission. It can be done. Most of them give you > an answer or at least point you to the places you can find it itself. > LangComm should consist of the people who are clever enough to ask > relevant questions and be able to understand and analyse the asnwers.
Yes, this is a good point. As far as I am introduced, this is LangCom's practice for a longer period of time. But, it is good to organize those contacts. I also agree with your point related to LangCom members profile. But, it is also good to have in-house solution for regular issues (and we have it now). _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
