Hoi,
There are too many issues in this. I am not in favour with so much under
consideration to be dealt with in this way. One issue at a time please.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 15:30, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote:
> Based on the input from the previous couple of days, I am listing
> them. Some of them are in the form of the request for comment, some of
> them are in the form of the proposal. So, please, comment if you
> disagree with some of the items.
>
> == Membership ==
>
> * Accepting any new member would still require consensus of those who
> expressed their opinion. (Nothing has changed.)
>
> * LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least
> twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where
> appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least
> once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation
> would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of
> membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy
> change!)
>
> * At this moment of time we have 17 members. One of them has very
> specific role (Zadiak, Wikiversity). I don't remember if I heard at
> all three of them. Five of them are quite quiet during the last few
> years.
>
> While it's good to create a general limit of 10-15 members, I think it
> is not useful at the moment, as we don't have all necessary expertise
> inside of the committee. However, on the long run, we could limit
> accepting new members from already covered areas.
>
> In relation to Wikimedia and computers in general we are pretty strong
> and I see no reason to increase the number of LangCom members based on
> those types of expertise.
>
> However, we lack in expertise and connections related to, most
> importantly, South (and Central) America and Southeast Asia (including
> Austronesian languages). It would be good to have somebody for the
> languages of New Guinea (~1500 of them).
>
> I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity
> inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native
> Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European
> ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be
> welcome, as well.
>
> My proposal (so, please, comment this paragraph if you don't agree or
> you want to make addition or change!) is to publish on wikimedia-l
> that we are searching for three member profiles, which should be,
> ideally, similar to Oliver: (1) A Wikimedian and expert in South and
> Central American indigenous languages; (2) A Wikimedian and expert in
> Southeast Asian (including Austronesian) languages; (3) A Wikimedian
> and expert in New Guinea languages.
>
> That would raise the number of LangCom members to 20 and from this
> point of time, we should wait to lose at least 7-8 members before
> adding any new.
>
> == Voting ==
>
> This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or
> you want any addition.
>
> 1) No voting
>
> 1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member
> of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project
> should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
>
> 1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia
> projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no
> significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population
> of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this
> case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
>
> 1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be
> approved without them.
>
> 2) Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
>
> 2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but
> without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers
> ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of
> speakers.)
>
> 2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but
> valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
>
> 2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between
> prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers
> "macrolangauges".)
>
> 2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
>
> 3) 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
>
> 3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in
> possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing
> projects policy [1].
>
> 4) Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
>
> 4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by
> any of the current committee member.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
