Changed the draft wrt macro languages and BCP: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=16968705&oldid=16781951
2017-07-04 20:27 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]>: > 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 > >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
