Hoi,
No. When you consider our context, this is not something to overregulate
with constraints like time limits. This is not for us to be a shamed in a
position whereby we lose track of what the language committee is there for.
Preventing from shit happening.
The situation where we are in is one where a project that has been approved
is not created. Where essential maintenance on language related technology
is not happening or only happening when it is done in volunteer time. I
like to remind you that the original idea was to have two phases to the
approval; one whereby we consider the technical issues of a language first
and after this first approval it is a matter of gaining sufficient weight
to the to be approved project to be approved. The nod of a specialist is to
prevent the highjacking of the project by people who have an agenda for
that language.
Finding a specialist is something that can happen from the first approval
moving forward.
Now ask yourself, why does the Hindi Wikisource not exist. What we do is
pissing in the wind, it makes no difference in the big picture. This notion
of 30 days will not make one iota of difference in the actual realisation
of a project. There are all kinds of other impediments for the support of
languages so this whole situation is trivial in the big picture.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:31, Steven White <[email protected]> wrote:
> 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
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
