I am against.
On 15 April 2018 at 10:47, MarcoAurelio <strig...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello. If I am allowed, I'd like to signal that the community advices
> LangCom to lock the project unanimously in the PCP page, not for inactivity
> (which indeed is not a valid reason) but for absence of content since the
> wiki creation, which it is a valid reason per policy to do so. Regards, M.
> 2018-04-11 8:22 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen <oliver_ste...@sil.org>:
>> I'm happy with the action that Steven took, including the recent
>> re-opening of the discussion (for clarity's sake). LangCom appointed him
>> clerk for the kind of activity which he brings to the table (and for which
>> LangCom members' activity like mine are too sporadic to make LangCom
>> effective - see multiple complaints over the years).
>> Closing projects policy was revised after our May 2011 meeting exactly so
>> that "closing a project is no longer easier than opening one". In the
>> case of Malagasy Wikibooks, I vote for rejecting the proposal to close
>> precisely because inactivity alone is not a sufficient reason for closure.
>> There's no harm in keeping it open, and it would be more work to close it
>> (if I understand matters correctly).
>> In the hope that this can be re-resolved quickly (and without yet more
>> On 10-Apr-18 23:14, Steven White wrote:
>> Look, I'm not trying to make trouble, nor to ramrod my opinions. With
>> thanks to members who supported my approach, I am going to revert the
>> closure of the discussion.
>> Before I do that, I will just point out that I think I have followed the
>> rules up to this point. Gerard's willingness to agree to the closure
>> happened in March, while we were still in a discussion phase. He did not
>> comment afterwards, so I wouldn't have characterized what he did as
>> negating my proposal. I do think it is within my purview as clerk to put a
>> proposal on the table. If I stretched a point of the rules at all, it was
>> to hypothesize that a "discussion" during which only one member comments is
>> not sufficient to establish a committee consensus to close an existing
>> project, particularly when its only real problem is inactivity. But maybe
>> that's not correct; that needs to be discussed.
>> I would also point out to Marco that per policy, the community's role in
>> such matters is advisory, not binding. Whether or not it should apply to
>> this particular case, the Board and LangCom have expressed a general point
>> of view that they would rather keep projects open than to close them,
>> provided that the project is not full of vandalism. So while the community
>> does seem to support the closure, LangCom need not follow the community's
>> advice, although it certainly may do so.
>> Closing projects policy
>> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy> normally does
>> not involve an actual vote; it is supposed to close on consensus. Again, my
>> perspective is that a consensus discussion to close a project that is not
>> vandalized requires more than one voice. If members disagree, then please
>> say so. (And I'd point out that frequently we allow a single voice to mark
>> a project request as "eligible" or "rejected"; I just think existing
>> projects deserve a little stronger benefit of the doubt.) So let's let this
>> run for at least another week, to April 17, and see what else people have
>> to say about it.
>> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>> Langcom mailing
>> Langcom mailing list
> Langcom mailing list
Langcom mailing list