I really don't want to approve a project where really nobody could be found to verify the content, in order to prevent some new Siberian Wikipedia case. So far we always found someone.
That said, funnily < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Final_approval> says "If all requirements have been met and a detailed investigation finds no unresolved problems", but does not explicitly mention the expert verification which we do as part of the "detailed investigation". So it's already possible to do this in a different way if we really really want to in a justified case. 2017-12-15 16:14 GMT+01:00 Steven White <[email protected]>: > In a way, Oliver, that just emphasizes my point. Everyone on this > Committee is a volunteer, every bit as much as the contributors to the new > projects. I don't think anyone can expect volunteers here to make > themselves crazy with work, either. On the other hand, at a certain point, > contributors to test projects are entitled to some resolution from us. And > if they've been working hard, doing legitimate work, that resolution should > be favorable, and shouldn't depend on our ability or inability to get a > response from language experts. > > > I'm inclined to propose a new rule. Following is a draft, not a request > for a vote, just to lay some ideas on the table for everyone: > > > RULE (DRAFT). To Handbook (committee), Final Approval, item #2 > <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval>, > add the following: > > > 4. If experts have been contacted (per item 1. above) but do not respond, > the test wiki community should be asked to provide the names of two > additional (different) language experts, and those should be contacted as > above. > > 5. If those experts also do not respond, and at least six months have > passed since the first request for language verification, the following > procedure applies: > > 5.1. LangCom makes a determination whether it thinks the test project > content is presumed legitimate. This is to be based, subjectively, on the > length of time the test has been open, the size of the test, and the number > of different contributors that have participated over time. > > 5.2. If LangCom believes the test project content is legitimate, a vote > can be called. The project can be approved if 2/3 of all members voting, > with at least five positive votes, agree. > > 5.3. Otherwise (or if the vote does not succeed), the test community is > told that language verification has failed, and that they need to continue > working on the test project for another six months, at which time another > attempt will be made for language verification. > > > Again, these are just ideas for now. > > Steven > > > Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom > >
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list [email protected] https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
