P.S.: For the record, I've now noted my opposition on the discussion page. Maybe, that's not how LangCom members are supposed to interact with proposals. However, the discussion on mg:wb is not a *community* discussion. The proposal was created by a speaker of Farsi in Iran, and apart from Jagwar, no other discussion participant seems to be a speaker of Malagasy. If you want me to give some evidence of my relation to the Malagasy language (apart from being a LangCom member), I have been a participant of the Africa Union's "Operational and Planning Workshop for the Kiswahili and Malagasy Vehicular Cross-Border Language Commissions in East Africa, 24-26 August 2011, Nairobi, Kenya", so I know something about the struggle of non-Western national languages to get a voice and a representation. Jagwar's efforts on Malagasy Wikibooks should not be treated as "absence of content" but they deserve our support.

Cheers,
Oliver


On 15-Apr-18 13:08, Oliver Stegen wrote:

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 <strig...@gmail.com <mailto: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
    <mailto: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 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
        Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
        <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>


        _______________________________________________
        Langcom mailing list
        Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
        https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
        <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>



    _______________________________________________
    Langcom mailing list
    Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
    https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
    <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>




_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom



_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Reply via email to