Please let me restate a couple of key points about my suggestion that people
seem not to have picked up:
* I have not proposed this as a substitute for a community's trying to get
its code changed. This is intended to be a workaround in the event that is not
possible.
* I explicitly stated that the requirement remain that an ISO 639–3 code
exists. If a language has no ISO 639–3 code, it does not get an Incubator
test, and it does not get a subdomain project. Period.
* I am quite sensitive to the fact that we don't want to make
independent judgments as to what is or is not a language. So no code, no test.
That does not change.
* This is only intended for cases where the community itself has a code
already, but finds its code offensive. It's up to LangCom to decide whether the
request is legitimate or frivolous. I would assume that LangCom would take a
pretty narrow view of this, requiring there to be some well-established history
behind the request. I wouldn't presume to tell you what that has to look like,
but perhaps at minimum there has to have been a request to SIL to change the
code first, even if that request was denied.
* Based on the rules above, I see no possibility of a sustained flood of
applications from groups that lack a language code. If there is briefly such a
flood, it will become clear quickly that such applications will be summarily
denied, and that will take care of that.
* If there are more requests from groups whose existing codes are based
on exonyms that would prefer a change—but the request goes no farther than a
preference–just say no.
Thank you for listening.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
