(perhaps a page/section on Meta, with sub-sections for each item, *would* allow discussion and rapid identification of consensus/disagreement on multiple items at the same time, without overwhelming.)
A. On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 7:56 AM Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > 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 >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
