(NB that this mail was sent in on Friday, I have approved it only now as a list admin, because I haven't been able to until now.)
Am So., 12. Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <[email protected] >: > While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a rationale, people who feel the policy is not set in exactly the right place are left with *no formal explanation *as to why the Language Committee devised the rules as it did. >At least, nobody has responded to my requests for documentation from 2007 showing how the decision was made. If it is or can be made available, that would be great. I have listed what I know at > https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages/Appendix_II:_Prior_policy_documents_and_decisions I really don't understand this. 2007 is prior to my time in Langcom and I have no knowledge I could share about the decisions made back then. However, I also don't see how this would help now. Some members have previously commented in the "start allowing ancient languages" RFC with good reasons as to why such projects shouldn't be approved. If there are "secret reasons from 2007", they can only further support not allowing ancient languages, probably. >This is a problem in itself, but I think is also a large factor in the upset felt by people who find their projects are declined. There is a policy, but it is not explained. the justifications are communicated to them adhoc and it is extremely hard for people understand why Wikimedia has this policy, as it is in fact, unexplained in any formal document. Instead, people whose projects are turned down are asked to accept the adhoc explanations of Wikimedia volunteers. This is bound to cause friction and grievance. >If anything can be published from the time, that would of course be very helpful. If this is a legitimate concern, I feel like the already existing short explanation at https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy#Specific_issues should be made more detailed, with some of the reasons already given, if the current "disallowing" of ancient languages stays in place. That seems better than digging up 2007 discussions. [...] *>The way forward* *>Publish if available, but do not engineering the 2007 decision:* I do not think the committee should now reverse engineer the reasons for the 2007 decision, if it turns out to be unavailable, especially as it probably was made without much public consultation or evidence gathering. *>If the documentation does turn up*, it is still twenty years old and there is still a need to take a look at the performance of the current ALWs and think about how they should be best supported. As above. *>Pause before looking again at the recommendations made on the current RFC.* Rather I think there should be a period of evidence gathering and reflection about ALWs. Once this evidence is gathered, some observations and recommendations can flow back to the RFC process. Can I also ask you to take a pause? I, too, mean this in good faith. But every time I try to follow what is happening at the RFC, new walls of texts have appeared and the RFC now has 5 appendices - it's like every day a new one pops up, and they all were created by you. Indeed I like to assess things thoroughly and carefully, which I feel like I cannot do if the proposals are piling up at such speed.
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
