Gerard, I've split multiple issues per email.
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 4:56 PM, 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
