[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

OK, my opinion (again) - i said most of this already in https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_comment/Start_allowing_ancient_languages If there should be any change in the policy, it should be this: add the word "native" in front of "speakers". That should add some clarity. The lack of

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

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 : > Thank you Gerard > >

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

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

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

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 > wrote: > Do any

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

Hoi, This committee predates the charter. Thanks, GerardM On Tue, 14 Sept 2021 at 13:42, Jim Killock 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

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

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

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

Hoi, Once Wikis have started, it is outside the remit of the language committee. As far as I am aware the committee does not seek authority outside of the current remit. Every now and again we are asked to look at a specific project because it is not functioning well, particularly when people find

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

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

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

Am Mo., 13. Sept. 2021 um 13:44 Uhr schrieb Jim Killock : >However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for the Latin project, and most likely for Sanskrit and Ancient Chinese, all of whom are disqualified from further progress. What is this supposed to mean? If these wikis

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

Hoi, What is unclear to you about the policy? The only thing I am convinced about is that you do not accept the policy. Sad you are wasting everyone's time. Thanks, GerardM On Mon, 13 Sept 2021 at 15:17, Jim Killock wrote: > Thank you again Gerard > > This is very helpful information. I

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

Thank you again Gerard This is very helpful information. I understand that the Committee was created by the Board. I have seen far les about (1) How the Board accepted the revision to the language excluding Ancient Languages; (2) How this was explained to the Board; (3) Whether the Board was

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

Hoi, No the policy was accepted by the board of the Wikimedia Foundation. The start of the committee was also the result of a board decision. The notion that it was the language committee is a nonsense because it only existed from that moment. Explicitly the existence of projects predating the

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

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 >: > >However the policy has left a lot of unresolved problems, at least for the > >Latin project, and most likely for

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

Dear Gerard Thank you, this kind of feedback is very help. You say: 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. What I take from this is that (1)

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

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 00:57, Jim Killock wrote: > > > On 12 Sep 2021, at 21:09,

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

(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 : > While there may have been no requirements at the time to provide a rationale, people who feel the policy

[Langcom] Re: Important: Transparency and policy gaps for Ancient Languages

> On 12 Sep 2021, at 21:09, MF-Warburg wrote: > > (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.) Thank you for approving it and taking the time to respond. > > > > Am So., 12. Sept. 2021 um 21:46 Uhr