Hoi,
Everything per the previous agreements are fine. So yes, we can have
projects when they have a valid ISO-639-3 code. When there is a problem
with this, it needs discussion. When someone objects and finds that the
arguments are not convincing better arguments need to be found.
Eligibility is the first phase of what we do. When a project is rejected as
ineligible, it is final. The next phase is with localisation and enough
articles.. It is very much to be understood that there are different
approaches to Wikipedia articles. I have proposed in the past that with
generated articles (cached not saved) we can do a lot more in providing the
sum of all knowledge. We have seen in one of the constructed languages a
lot of articles means a lot of traffic (not bot).
In this next phase we may also find organisations that are willing to adopt
a language and can convince us to make a difference. This failed in the
past for CIS.. :(
We have a policy whereby secondary projects require really strong
commitment. I have asked to change this for Wikisource because this is NOT
an end user project but much more a project for editors.
As it is we have no mandate for closing projects. All we can do is suggest
to the board with arguments why a specific project is to be closed. We have
done this only once.
I do not care for percentages of expressed opinion. We need convincing
arguments and we have shown plenty times that we can be convinced. So there
is no need to change this.
When we change our policy, it requires board approval. Therefore once we
agree on a proposal, it needs to be presented with arguments to the board
for approval.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote:
> One issue: voting.
>
> == 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
