Thank you Gerard This is helpful. When did the Charter come into effect?
> On 14 Sep 2021, at 13:03, Gerard Meijssen <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hoi, > This committee predates the charter. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 13:42, Jim Killock <[email protected] > <mailto:[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”. > > The orginal consultation was faulty, in breach of the Committee Charter and > has produced a problematic AL policy; > 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; > 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] >> <mailto:[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: >> >> The change to the status of Ancient Languages was presented as a minor >> change to the Language proposal policy >> The discussion was very short, with just 16 emails sent >> Only three issues were raised; being the need to meet the mission; a "need >> for native speakers"; and the need for a “natural audience” >> There were no mitigations or alternatives discussed >> There was no mention of a public discussion or consultation, which appears >> to be a breach of the Committee’s Charter commitment to transparency >> 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] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> _______________________________________________ >> Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> >> To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]> > > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected] > <mailto:[email protected]> > _______________________________________________ > Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] > To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
signature.asc
Description: Message signed with OpenPGP
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe send an email to [email protected]
