significance. Communities are allowed to apply for new Wikis in these
languages.
For instance, if the list of languages in your view should omit “Ancient
Greek”; then perhaps you could agree the rest of it?
> On 20 Sep 2021, at 10:48, Jim Killock wrote:
>
> Signed PGP part
> Der Gerard
t in the current policy.
On the latter point, the policy does not say “if the langauge does not have
room for new terminology” but rather “does not have native speakers”, so I
believe you are arguing to change the current policy.
> For me this continued pushing for something that serves no
Dear Committee,
I do hope you are finding the time to take consideration of the very limited
and sensible proposals in front of you, to allow specific Classical Languages,
where they are and have long been second language vehicles, with proven methods
of educating second langauge users and
Hi there,
I havew taken the points raised so by the Committee:, which seem to be:
(1) We need an eeasy-to-operate policy
(2) There needs to be an auidience and benefit to Wikimedia for the project
(3) There needs to be quality control
Perhaps the way to do this, is to make it clear that the
Gerard, you are indeed a master at moving the conversation in the wrong
direction, this I am learning.
The Committee formed in 2006 and received a Charter in 2007. The language
policy was introduced later, but none of this matters.
What I need is the opinion of the Committee about my points
Thank you Gerard
This is helpful. When did the Charter come into effect?
> On 14 Sep 2021, at 13:03, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> This committee predates the charter.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 13:42, Jim Killock <mailto:j...@killo
o 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 <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> wrote:
> Dear Gerard,
>
&g
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
rom
> that moment.
>
> Explicitly the existence of projects predating the start of the committee are
> outside the remit of the language committee
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 13:44, Jim Killock <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>> wrote:
Thank you for your time responding.
> On 13 Sep 2021, at 12:56, MF-Warburg wrote:
>
> Am Mo., 13. Sept. 2021 um 13:44 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
> >However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for the
> >
ard Meijssen wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> The point of the policy is to explicitly invalidate any and all arguments
> that were used before. There is no point in looking in older history, at best
> it shows the genesis of the policy.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at
Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
> > 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 t
Dear Committee,
I am sorry to write this email in this way and I sincerely ask that you
consider it in good faith, I am not attempting to cause trouble, but I would
like you to consider it carefully and thoroughly, and come back with a
substantive and not knee-jerk response.
This I think
Thank you Amir
> On 9 Sep 2021, at 04:58, Amir E. Aharoni wrote:
>
> I don't support these proposed changes.
>
> The discussion mentions the "success" of Latin. What makes it successful? The
> fact that some people write there? But who reads it? I'm not talking just
> about numbers; I'm
i,
> What difference does it make. The policies are clear, the arguments why have
> not been refuted. The discussions have been followed over time by committee
> members..
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On Wed, 8 Sept 2021 at 14:04, Jim Killock <mailto:j...@killock.org
was archived by this user in
> favour of his new proposal, which already generated much text again.
>
> Am Di., 7. Sept. 2021 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
> Dear LangCom,
>
> I am a sometime contributor to Latin Wikipedia, Latin Wik
ltra-long discussion was archived by this user in
> favour of his new proposal, which already generated much text again.
>
> Am Di., 7. Sept. 2021 um 12:41 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock <mailto:j...@killock.org.uk>>:
> Dear LangCom,
>
> I am a sometime contributor to Latin Wi
Dear LangCom,
I am a sometime contributor to Latin Wikipedia, Latin Wikisource, and Latin
Wikibooks. I feel that my time is well spent doing this, and belong to a
community of people who write and use spoken Latin, although my own Latin is
still intermediate at this point. However, I can
18 matches
Mail list logo
