Hoi,
Introducing these codes is no problem. It has been agreed that once a
language is deemed eligible it remains that way. When a new team comes
along it may be good to check the standard again to see if something has
changed.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 22 January 2018 at 21:45, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> wrote:
> +1
>
> I concur with Steve's proposal / line of argument concerning "reject as
> stale" vs "pending / on hold".
>
>
>
> On 22-Jan-18 18:05, Steven White wrote:
>
> Mostly, it has to do with the action date. I don't think it makes WMF or
> LangCom look very good to have dozens of projects that appear to have been
> pending for over five years, especially when the requester is someone who
> showed up for a day, or a couple of weeks, and then has disappeared. I
> think it's much better to make sure the requests that are pending are
> current ones.
>
> My intention, once I get to requests that are no more than a couple of
> years old, is to allow projects to remain "on hold" for 1–2 years, and only
> after that closing them. I'm figuring that if no one shows up in two years,
> we ought to move on.
>
> Finally, I do intend to make clear on such pages that a future request
> would be welcomed if a community (re-)appears in the future.
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
