> We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are heard. So effectively you are part of what we do.
Not entirely. The page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee writes explicitly:* "Non-members should generally not participate in discussions. When it is necessary however, they can send a mail which a list administrator will need to accept manually."* Not that I mind being moderated, but to put it bluntly, writing a message feels pretty much like being an intruder. > The language committee was created to say "no". Hm, perhaps I am wrong, but isn't the language committee also there to say "yes" every once in a while? Mind, I can follow your logic. If one member saying "no" means the whole committee says "no", it makes sense to limit the number of members to a bare minimum, because otherwise saying "no" is likely to become all the committee will ever do. I agree that for normal issues a majority vote would be a much better solution. While I agree with Amir that voting is not the solution for all problems, giving each individual member the right to veto any progress is a solution even worse. Besides, I read that a quite a few members are completely inactive, which shouldn't come as a surprise if you consider that members are basically appointed for life. Given the fact that (except for Satdeep Gill) not a single new member has been added since 2012, I thought it might be a good idea to change that. That's why I am offering my expertise and help in speeding things up. Cheers, Jan 2017-02-07 7:46 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
