None of this is leading anywhere. I suggest taking note of this useful comment: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages#Topics_which_are_distractions_from_the_ask
Am Di., 14. Sept. 2021 um 14:23 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <[email protected] >: > 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]> 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] > > > _______________________________________________ > 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]
