Hoi,
yes and we reached consensus about the ones we use. There is a concern and
having a two third majority should be no problem. We do have ISO 639-3
macro languages, they should be avoided.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 4 July 2017 at 20:19, Michael Everson <[email protected]> wrote:
> Gerard,
>
> We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags.
>
> Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble.
>
> > On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>
> wrote:
> >
> > Hoi,
> > In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a
> two third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much
> as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro
> language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having
> them and we should try to prevent them as they are often more of a
> political than linguistic reality.
> > 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
