OK. Here is, first, my initial email. I will resend relevant communication afterwards:
== 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 On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> wrote: > The first email that I can see only contains sections 1.2, 1.3 and 2.2, i.e. > it looks like substantial parts of the proposal are missing. Please upload > the entire proposal somewhere and send the link. Thanks. > > > > On 17-May-17 22:43, Milos Rancic wrote: >> >> 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 > > > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
