Asaf had written on 07-May-15 3:48 AM (GMT+3):
"Mjbmr: I think you've shared valuable information here, but you do need
to exercise more patience with the process. LangCom deals with complex
decisions that are relatively high-stakes, in the sense that once things
are set in motion they are quite difficult and perhaps impossible to
undo/reverse. So deliberation and patience are the natural modes for it."
I concur with his advice. So please be patient and let LangCom do their
job. We appreciate your input on the relevant language background.
However, any additional messages now detract from the time and energy
which LangCom members have available for dealing with the complex
decisions we are mandated to make (and this detraction actually includes
me writing this message).
Sincerely,
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:12 PM, Mjbmr wrote:
Can you be more specific please?
On 5/8/2015 7:04 PM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Dear Mjbmr,
Please take Asaf's advice to you in a message of early May 7 (or
late May 6) to heart and refrain from comments which are inciting. As
it is, you are actually making an agreement between voting LangCom
members more difficult with such messages. Thanks for your consideration.
Sincerely,
Oliver
On 08-May-15 10:58 AM, Mjbmr wrote:
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he
doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member
better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to
discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of
azb project.
On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Gerard,
I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some
issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email.
Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try
again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential
misunderstandings ... *sigh*
How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I
understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate
with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az
community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to
be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the
mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal
asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent
matters. Thanks.
Oliver
On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am
dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants.
Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>
wrote:
> Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one
affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want
this to be an excuse.
Answer my questions.
Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form?
Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
