Hoi,
As it is we have a policy whereby anyone can say "no" and it is no. We have
a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are heard. So
effectively you are part of what we do.
The language committee was created to say "no". This has proven to be
effective. From the later projects there are fewer failures. As such the
language works as designed.
While some may think that I am obstinate about the GRC issue, the same
opinion I have about proposals that I made. That is however how the cookie
crumbles.
So YES, I value your input and NO I think we should not add another person
that is enabled to say no.
It is not personal. Quite the contrary however, when we are to change the
policy we should overhaul it properly and discuss all the issues we face
with the current policy.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 7 February 2017 at 01:48, Jan van Steenbergen <[email protected]>
wrote:
> > 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.
>
> Speaking of which... Would it be possible for me to apply for membership
> of the Langcom? I've been following the discussions on this mailing list
> for about two years now, and I hope I might be helpful to you.
>
> A short introduction:
>
> My name is Jan van Steenbergen, I'm 46 years old and I live in IJmuiden,
> the Netherlands. I work as a professional translator and interpreter Polish
> <> Dutch. Linguistics is both my work and my hobby. My main fields of
> interest are Slavic languages, constructed languages, Cyrillic and Eastern
> Europe. My "language package" can be found on my user page:
> https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IJzeren_Jan (mind, the languages
> listed there are those that I have actually learned to some degree – there
> are dozens of other languages I can understand, or know the basics of).
>
> I've been editing Wikipedia sporadically since 2003 as an anonymous user,
> and have been more active after I created my first user account in 2004. My
> home wiki is nlwiki, where I am currently an admin. I've been editing
> several other language versions as well, but less frequently.
>
> As I already explained in my post about Lingua Franca Nova, when it comes
> to the question whether a language should be allowed to have its own wiki
> or not, my primary criterion would be viability/sustainability. In other
> words, does a potential project have good perspectives for success?
> Obviously, a large community of native speakers is a good thing to start
> with, but if a language has 50 mln. speakers and there is nobody willing to
> work on a wiki, then the project is doomed to become a failure anyway. What
> we surely want to avoid is dead wikis where practically every article is
> just three or four words. On the other hand, if a language has no native
> speakers at all, yet it is still able to generate a prospering wiki, then I
> am all for it. Even a wiki in a language without native speakers can become
> a success, provided that the language is well-documented, stable and
> complete, and provided that there are enough people willing to work on it.
> As far as I am concerned, if a language is doing well in the Incubator for
> a longer period, that means it has passed the exam.
>
> Best regards,
> Jan van Steenbergen
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
