Hoi,
I am not in any particular rush to continue this conversation. The way
Milos has rubbed everybody and did not stop and did go on is problematic.
For me the whole idea of a language foundation is something not to be
desired when it expresses this kind of unworkable radicalism.
So let us stall everything for a moment certainly for a month and let us
stew on where we are and what we want to achieve and realistically can
achieve.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 17 May 2017 at 20:28, Milos Rancic <[email protected]> wrote:
> We've started discussion about this policy on the private list because
> of one example.
>
> I thought we've concluded that, but I see now that MF-Warburg's
> comments haven't been addressed.
>
> Note: When we start voting (after finishing discussion), this will
> need 2/3 to pass. Although we haven't yet formally defined the exact
> ratios for particular, it's obvious that we won't go with simple
> majority in relation to the policy change.
>
> On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, MF-Warburg <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> > I think this needs some discussion. I'm not really excited about it, but
> I
> > think you could convince me.
> >
> > 2017-02-08 2:13 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <[email protected]>:
> >>
> >> Gerard and I were talking today about this issue. Here is the proposal
> >> to be added into the LPP if accepted. Gerard's parts are related to
> >> the traditional LangCom requirements, my parts are about the
> >> organizations. Feel free to fix my English, add whatever you think
> >> it's important for the amendment itself etc. (Asaf, Carlos, you are
> >> encouraged to give your input in relation to the organizational part.)
> >>
> >> Note that this proposal assumes that both Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia
> >> organizations would be able to propose a project for fast approval.
> >>
> >> * * *
> >>
> >> Fast approval assumes that the Language committee would approve
> >> previously eligible first Wikimedia project in particular language
> >> under certain conditions without necessity for the project to pass the
> >> process inside of Incubator (which usually lasts at least six months,
> >> but likely a couple of years).
> >
> > I'm surprised that your proposal is to restrict it to the first project.
> > Haven't such ideas come up in the past more frequently for Wikisource,
> when
> > a Wikipedia already existed? (I recall some things proposed by Gerard).
>
> I don't remember that. I think it makes sense to do that with the
> first project because telling to particular community that they are
> welcome. Afterwards, they should work on their capacities. Also,
> Wikisource doesn't seem like a problem, as there is Multilingual
> Wikisource.
>
> Or we want something different?
>
> >> The main condition for fast approval is officially expressed support
> >> by particular organization, which would guarantee that the project
> >> would be viable for the next two years.
> >
> > Does that mean the organisation should commit to edit the project? And
> what
> > if it doesn't do what it guaranteed?
>
> I suppose not to edit, but to organize people to edit.
>
> I suppose that they should give us a very good reason why they failed
> and/or a good reason how their next project could succeed if they want
> us to listen to them next time. Keep in mind that it would be a
> serious issue for an average chapter.
>
> But, also, keep in mind that this could be just a test project from
> our side and to analyze success after, let's say, 10 projects created
> in that way.
>
> > With these requirements, it doesn't sound too bad.
> > However, when I think of chapters (or whatever) working together with a
> > community to start a new Wikipedia, I always think of the Minangkabau
> > Wikipedia, which started with some action (editathon maybe, I don't
> > remember) from Wikimedia Indonesia, and which quickly got a highly active
> > community, and was approved in record time (three months in Incubator, I
> > think). Doesn't simply proving that the proposed project is good by
> > achieving such an activity in Incubator sound better than first battling
> > around with Langcom about the plan?
>
> I've checked data about Minangkabau [1] and it has 5.5 million of
> speakers. It is very likely that the most of similar cases would be
> about languages with much smaller number of speakers (few hundred
> thousands) and it would be challenging to a chapter to gather enough
> of editors for a highly active community.
>
> Besides that, Siska is an extraordinary manager in that way and was
> motivated to make a success story. We can't count on such
> circumstances as a rule.
>
> [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minangkabau_language
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
