Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Since there were no further comments, I have marked the voting policy as an adopted policy now. Let's vote away! 2017-07-06 17:28 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg : > Changed the draft wrt macro languages and BCP: > https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=16968705=16781951 > >

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Changed the draft wrt macro languages and BCP: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=16968705=16781951 2017-07-04 20:27 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > yes and we reached consensus about the ones we use. There is a concern and > having a two third majority

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Hoi, yes and we reached consensus about the ones we use. There is a concern and having a two third majority should be no problem. We do have ISO 639-3 macro languages, they should be avoided. Thanks, GerardM On 4 July 2017 at 20:19, Michael Everson wrote: > Gerard, >

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Gerard, We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags. Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble. > On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > > Hoi, > In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a two > third majority.

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

I do not have time to go and edit the voting policy right now. Please take my concerns into account. > On 4 Jul 2017, at 12:31, MF-Warburg wrote: > > Are there further comments about this? I'd invite those of you who want to > change parts of the policy to edit >

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Hoi, In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a two third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having them

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

+1 Thanks, MF, for working Gerard's comments into the new policy draft so sensibly and sensitively! No further comments or changes from my side - I'd be happy to approve those new rules. Oliver On 04-Jul-17 13:31, MF-Warburg wrote: Are there further comments about this? I'd invite those of

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

On 13 Jun 2017, at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > First there is no agreement. Not sure what you are talking about. > Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living languages there is no need > for a vote. That’s our rules, yes. > Third, for other

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Then explain it. 2017-06-13 7:15 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen : > Hoi, > Yes you do. > Thanks, > GerardM > > On 13 June 2017 at 04:42, MF-Warburg wrote: > >> The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be >>

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Hoi, Yes you do. Thanks, GerardM On 13 June 2017 at 04:42, MF-Warburg wrote: > The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be > decided by a (simple majority) vote. Or do I misunderstand the objection? > > 2017-05-19 3:32 GMT+02:00

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Forgot one important point: :''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code.'' This would be a novelty. 2017-05-19 0:33 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg : > I put my draft on

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

I put my draft on < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy>, comments on the talk page, and reproduce it below. It shouldn't have anything new in it that wasn't already mentioned before. Feel free to edit on Meta or write your opinions here. {{draft}} The Language

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Hoi, No as far as I am concerned the conversation has soured. I prefer for us to take stock and not rush on. Thanks, GerardM On 17 May 2017 at 23:08, Milos Rancic wrote: > We could do that. MF-Warburg could put the proposal on wiki, so we > could discuss and comment

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

We should start finishing this issue. May all of you check the previous discussion and say if you agree in general with the proposal amended by MF-Warburg? If so, I would make the next draft. On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic wrote: > On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg wrote: >> 1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia >> projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no >> significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population >> of

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

We approved be-tarask. > On 11 Feb 2017, at 17:19, MF-Warburg wrote: > > 2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but > valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.) > > I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with

Re: [Langcom] Voting changes

Hoi, Everything per the previous agreements are fine. So yes, we can have projects when they have a valid ISO-639-3 code. When there is a problem with this, it needs discussion. When someone objects and finds that the arguments are not convincing better arguments need to be found. Eligibility is