Hoi,
This committee predates the charter.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 13:42, Jim Killock <[email protected]> wrote:
> Do any of the other Committee members have an opinion about this below?
>
> I do not believe it the problem here to be a "process issue”.
>
>
> 1. The orginal consultation was faulty, in breach of the Committee
> Charter and has produced a problematic AL policy;
> 2. The Committee’s current is in likely breach of the Committee’
> Charter language policy as it is not based on “quantative indicators” but
> instead changes these indicators according to preference;
> 3. This tension between the Committee’s Charter and the AL policy is
> being consulted on now, there is an alternative approach available, but so
> far the Committee do not seem to wish to respond or to discuss these
> mitigations
>
>
> Gerard, this does not need a response from you at this stage as we have
> that already
>
>
>
>
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 20:31, Jim Killock <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>> Dear Gerard,
>>
>> I am sorry you feel your time is being wasted. I am also very surprised
>> how much effort this is taking, especially given that *the request for
>> policy change in the RFC is very limited*, and would help the Committee
>> deal with issues around the ancient language wikis which are not performing
>> well. Furthermore I have no wish to be a nuisance, rather I would like to
>> work with the Committee to help improve the ability of Ancient Language
>> Wikis (ALWs) to meet WM’s mission.
>>
>> As you say, the policy is clear; the process is now clearer, having found
>> the email archive. This is important, because some members of the Committee
>> want to leave the current policy in place, should the current RFC be
>> rejected.
>>
>> However, that is only reasonable if the policy you have can be seen to be
>> developed fairly and responsibly, and to have dealt with all of the issues
>> properly, at the time. Looking at the email discussion that led to the
>> change I would observe that:
>>
>>
>> 1. The change to the status of Ancient Languages was *presented as a
>> minor change to the Language proposal policy*
>> 2. The discussion was very short, with just 16 emails sent
>> 3. *Only three issues were raised*; being the need to meet the
>> mission; a "need for native speakers"; and the need for a “natural
>> audience”
>> 4. There were no mitigations or alternatives discussed
>> 5. There was *no mention of a public discussion or consultation*,
>> which *appears to be a breach of the Committee’s Charter commitment
>> to transparency*
>> 6. There was no discussion of whether *qualitative factors* (ancient
>> versus constructed languages) could be appropriately combined with
>> *different
>> treatment of objective factors* (numbers of native speakers) which
>> *appears
>> to be in breach of the Committee’s Charter, which commits to using
>> objective factors alone.*
>>
>>
>> Point six in particular is in need of public consultation and a
>> consensus, and should not be the property of the Committee to determine by
>> itself, or via a Board rubber stamp.
>>
>> All this said, it is easy to say these things in hindsight. I just want
>> to be plain that the current RFC process is already a much more thorough
>> and developed policy process than that in 2007 - quite naturally, given we
>> have 14 years of further experience to apply. A review would be quite
>> natural after this length of time in any case.
>>
>> So this is not meant as criticism, still less a personal one. I would
>> however like the Committee to approach the current RFC positively, and use
>> it to take a fresh look.
>>
>> Thank you again for your time,
>>
>> Jim
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Langcom mailing list -- [email protected]
>> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Langcom mailing list -- [email protected]
> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list -- [email protected]
To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
