Oliver, are you able to see the first email in the thread? On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> wrote: > Imho, it would be helpful to have a link to the amended proposal, rather > than having to wade through previous discussion. Possible to upload and send > such a link? > (Or maybe that has already happened and I just can't find the link? In which > case sorry for not finding it - please still send it to this list.) > > > > On 17-May-17 20:33, Milos Rancic wrote: >> >> We should start finishing this issue. May all of you check the >> previous discussion and say if you agree in general with the proposal >> amended by MF-Warburg? If so, I would make the next draft. >> >> On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote: >>> >>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg <[email protected]> >>> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> 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. >>>> >>>> This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn out to >>>> be >>>> contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as >>>> eligible >>>> without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So if >>>> we >>>> want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as well? >>> >>> Agreed. >>> >>>>> 1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be >>>>> approved without them. >>>> >>>> What does this mean exactly? >>> >>> Yes, it could be described more in detail. I thought that we can't >>> vote about approving a new Wikipedia if they didn't translate 500 >>> MediaWiki messages and similar. I was too lazy to take a look into the >>> exact conditions for approval. In other words, we could discuss about >>> the activity, but we can't discuss to approve the project if it's not >>> written in particular language. And similar. >>> >>>> Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient Greek. >>>> Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding >>>> constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than the >>>> possibility to allow everything by a majority vote. >>> >>> Yes. But it would anyway require majority vote. What's the difference >>> between Ancient Greek and Sumerian? Would we allow Wikipedia in >>> Sumerian? Classical Hebrew? ... >>> >>>>> 2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but >>>>> valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.) >>>> >>>> I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 >>>> codes. >>>> Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy? >>> >>> In general, we should discuss and (hopefully) approve usage BCP 47 >>> formally, as well. However, it is so wide territory, that it's hard to >>> make a consistent rule about it: Why should we approve qu-ec and why >>> we shouldn't approve en-au? Why it's better to use mn-mong for >>> Mongolian instead of mvf? ... >>> >>>> The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a 2/3 >>>> majority to introduce a new member anyway. >>> >>> Yes. But that would mean that there is something really bad going on >>> here. >>> >>>> Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved unless >>>> a >>>> member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not exactly >>>> rejected, n'est-ce pas?). >>>> At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however that >>>> in >>>> general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I >>>> have >>>> been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the >>>> “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always was: >>>> not >>>> really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a >>>> theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason. But >>>> apart >>>> from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will >>>> help >>>> much. >>> >>> Time and efforts required for arguing with only one person and having >>> in mind that it's useless makes LangCom dysfunctional. Besides that, >>> in few years we could have even 100 requests for eligibility per year. >>> It's likely that 60-70 would be valid, but it's also likely that we >>> would have to spend extraordinary time on discussion about 10-20 of >>> them. Even if it's once per month, it would be stressful enough and >>> lead us into the new period of hibernation. >>> >>> Besides that, it's not about random persons here, but about people >>> with enough professional and personal integrity. It is normal that we >>> don't agree about everything and that we should accept if more members >>> of LangCom decided to approve the project. >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list >> [email protected] >> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
