Oh, so you propose, for eligible languages with ISO 639-3 codes, to have
them all in the list "Request for new languages" on Meta, regardless of
how inactive they are, but without necessarily any presence on incubator
(unless some native speaker starts the project there)? Well, if the
others agree, why not?
Cheers,
Oliver
On 23-Jan-18 11:28, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
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]
<mailto:[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]
<mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
<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 list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
<https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
<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
