On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[email protected]> wrote:
> We had in the past really well functioning languages that were also shifted
> to Wikia. It is all part and parcel of the original idea of the policy to
> prevent the easy creation of new projects. This was needed because at the
> time there was a groundswell of sentiment to prevent new projects all
> together.
>
> When one member of the committee says "NO", it will not happen. Wen doubts
> are raised it is not no. So please be clear what your intentions are.
True. Here is my more precise position.
My basic position is on the Amir's line: So weak against ("Wikia
should be good enough") that I don't want to be the one who blocks it.
However, for me it *is* mandatory to have a good reasoning in favor.
That's why I asked Michael to make one. I see that as mandatory
because of the future request.
There is a tiny line, invisible from both sides, which differs
relevant institutions from irrelevant ones. LangCom exists to keep
Wikimedia relevant institution in relation to the languages. I would
define relevancy as.
We are still on the relevant side and LFN is one of the possible lines
and we need to make a good decision here. And I have to say that what
Amir's said about LFN doesn't sound promising at the moment.
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
