Hoi,
There is a difference between rejecting existing projects on the incubator
because they are stale and our consideration for eligibility. I do not mind
having projects removed from Incubator. It has never been a real
consideration of the language committee what happens there.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 23 January 2018 at 11:01, Oliver Stegen <[email protected]> wrote:
> Hm, I'm not so sure about that. If "once a language is eligible it remains
> that way" holds, why do we need proposals at all? We might just as well
> create incubator space for every language with a ISO 639-3 code. While it
> is my vision that we will, one day, have wikis in every language, I don't
> think cluttering the incubator with projects which remain inactive for
> years is helpful. So I keep my support of Steve's proposal to mark projects
> as "reject as stale" if they were proposed by a once person without
> subsequent action.
>
> Fwiw,
> Oliver
>
> On 23-Jan-18 08:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> 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
>>
>>
>
>
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> Virus-free.
> www.avg.com
> <http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
> <#m_2226521034812243509_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing
> [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
