Do we have other suggestions for how to solve the problem of proposed projects being in limbo for unreasonable periods of time?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 11:16 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hoi, > When the language committee was formed, it was exactly good faith that > proved problematic. > > It has proven extremely problematic to end projects so no, that is exactly > the wrong sentiment. > Thanks, > GerardM > > Op vr 16 aug. 2019 10:41 schreef James Heilman <jmh...@gmail.com>: > >> Thanks Steven >> >> In my opinion, I am happy for us to assume good faith with respect to >> these projects. We should have a specific time period to weight in, if no >> one brings forwards specific concerns during this time period than creation >> should move forwards. If major concerns are raised down the road, it is not >> that hard to roll back an approval. >> >> James >> P.S. Please note that this is my own opinion and not an official board >> position. >> >> On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 06:09 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijs...@gmail.com> >> wrote: >> >>> So ignore me. But verification is part of the game.You do not threaten >>> us and cowe us in undesired consequences. It is not for you to make these >>> threats. >>> GerardM >>> >>> On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Steven White <koala19...@hotmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>>> Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four >>>> projects: Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya) >>>> Wiktionary. No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the fault >>>> of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language >>>> Committee, which did not do its job. Accordingly, I will approve and send >>>> to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on >>>> Monday, 19 August. I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of >>>> the following happens: >>>> >>>> - Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be >>>> concerned about the validity of the language. >>>> - That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert >>>> immediately. >>>> - Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and >>>> identified the expert to the mail list. >>>> - Then, the expert has 7 days to respond. >>>> >>>> Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if one >>>> of these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and we'll >>>> delete the project. But I've been watching all of these projects for the >>>> last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem. >>>> >>>> If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I have >>>> outlined above, I intend to ignore that person. Sorry, but at this point, >>>> the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to become >>>> active again and do its job. >>>> >>>> Steven >>>> >>>> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> >>>> _______________________________________________ >>>> 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 >> > _______________________________________________ > 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
