2011/6/25 Milos Rancic <[email protected]> > On 06/25/2011 11:20 AM, Lodewijk wrote: > > could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to > > *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this > advice > > to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the > committee > > disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a > > one-person-call). Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee > has > > a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about > whether > > or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)? > > The answer to the last question is simple: Nobody else bothered to > normalize the situation and Robin took initiative. (Besides that, all of > the issues were described inside of the LangCom report from the meeting > in Berlin, so you could object before. And it was not posted at the > regional court on Alpha Centaur, but on this list, as well.) >
As you may remember, the report was very long, and even though I speeded through it, I did not notice it since I wouldn't ever expect it there :) The fact you published it before doesnt make arguments less valid though. I do agree we need some procedure, I am just not sure this is the right one. Just to be super clear: the board approved this procedure explicitely in a vote? (I can't find the resolution yet on foundationwiki) Lodewijk _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
