Thank you for this, Steven, and thanks for all the great work you have done
for us so far. I agree that this is a sensible change – we should be
ashamed that it has taken us this long to get moving on these languages,
and we need to do better.

One thing that I believe we have been reluctant to in the past is accepting
experts referred by the communities themselves. However, I feel like that
would be something that could be changed as long as we are able to
independently verify such experts' credentials. Don't know how/if that
could be worked into the LPP somehow?

tir. 20. aug. 2019 kl. 19:31 skrev Steven White <[email protected]>:

> Gerard wrote:
>
> <start>
> Hoi,
> Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to
> expect a result.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
> <end>
>
> For the current instance, based on where we are now, Amir's estimation is
> fine. As long as someone is actually trying to follow up on these projects,
> and gives a reasonable estimate as to how long it will take, I'm fine.
>
> James's question, and mine, is more around the big picture.  Please
> remember that three of the four projects we are talking about here (Guiane
> Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Tacawit Wiktionary) were identified in an email I
> wrote on 17 December 2018 (about eight months ago) as already being
> provisionally approved and awaiting language verification. The fourth (Mon
> WP) is perhaps a month newer.  But 7-8 months and longer—Saraiki WP was
> provisionally approved in October 2018—is absolutely not reasonable by any
> standard.  Quite frankly, I was desperate to do something to move these
> along, because being nice and playing by the rules was doing absolutely
> nothing. (Remember, too, that I wrote pleasant, polite reminders to the
> committee about these four projects on March 14 and June 6.) I'm sorry,
> Gerard, that you didn't like me doing what I did. But what I did is far
> less objectionable than requiring communities to wait this long for us to
> complete language verification.
>
> To that end, I am proposing the following amendment to the provision about
> language verification. I am open to some adjustments, but allowing projects
> to sit this long and wait *for us* is just not acceptable.  Where this
> amendment is to be added is in the Language Committee's Handbook, Final
> Approval
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval>,
> item #2. Subitem #3 is to be followed by new subitem #4:
>
> 4. The Language Committee has 30 days from the time a project is
> provisionally approved—meaning: approved, except for language
> verification—to identify and contact an expert for the language
> verification. If no expert is contacted within 30 days, then on the
> assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved.  If an
> expert is contacted within 30 days, the Language Committee has an
> additional 60 days to obtain the final language verification. If no
> language verification (or failure of language verification) is received by
> then, on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally
> approved. Overall, any project for which the Language Committee has failed
> to get language verification (or failure of language verification) within
> 90 days will be approved on the assumption of good faith.
>
> I think this gives us plenty of time to do what we need to do, without
> requiring communities to wait on us for months without comment.  This would
> apply for all projects receiving provisional approval from this point on.
> But in parallel, given that Amir started working on these four projects
> around August 15, I would also propose that if we have not finalized
> language verification by October 15, these four projects also be finally
> approved.
>
> Steven
>
> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
>


-- 
mvh
Jon Harald Søby
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Reply via email to