On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Michael Everson <[email protected]> wrote:
> On 6 Feb 2017, at 20:28, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>> I'd support Ancient Greek [grc] as well.
>
> In my view, it would do as well as Latin. Vocabulary would be a matter for
> the users.
I am for consistent explicit (if possible) or implicit rules. If one
of the relevant rules is the usefulness, then Ancient Greek is
definitely more useful than any constructed language.
>> Alas!, don't the rules say that, if one LangCom member opposes, that leads
>> to rejection? If that truly is the case, we may need to look into that rule.
>> Maybe, we can settle on something slightly more democratic?
>
> Yes, we have a single-member veto. I'm not sure how useful it is.
I am in favor of making LangCom a normal democratic body: 50%+1 (of
those who voted) for regular decisions, 2/3 majority (of those who
voted) for changing the rules. ("Of those who voted" because we have u
number of inactive members.)
Also, unlike a decade ago, LangCom has expert legitimacy and integrity
now, as well as a decade of experience. That's the reason why I don't
think that any group would use majority as a tool to push unreasonable
decisions.
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
