I am also against closing mg:wb, i.e. transferring it to the incubator.
I don't read the outcome of the discussion as a "unanimous" advice to
LangCom to lock the project. There really is only one strong support for
closure, one weak (and very apologetic!) support and then there's is
Jagwar, the only consistently active user at mg:wb, who sounds more
resigned to his lone stance without support for his efforts. I've looked
at the content, and especially the pages on explaining Python (granted,
seven sections may not make a complete book) are an excellent example of
how to go about WikiBooks in a LWC (language of wider communication).
While I agree that *absence* of content since wiki creation would be a
reason for closure, I don't see *absence* of content. Those seven
sections on Python (I've counted the four pages of Python/Teny as one
section) are content enough for me to allow mg:wb to continue at its
project site.
Cheers,
Oliver
On 15-Apr-18 10:57, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
I am against.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 15 April 2018 at 10:47, MarcoAurelio <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>> 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 <[email protected]
<mailto:[email protected]>>:
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 bureaucracy),
Oliver
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.
Steven
Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
<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_4284120631935571393_m_4414387168066765486_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] <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
