+1 (FWIW) 2017-02-06 22:45 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <[email protected]>:
> 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 > -- mvh Jon Harald Søby
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
