On Jun 2, 2015 02:08, "MZMcBride" <z...@mzmcbride.com> wrote:
> Milos Rancic wrote:
> >On Jun 2, 2015 00:39, "Benjamin Lees" <emufarm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>"Won't get a project"? Are you saying that new project language
> >> editions are only approved if the MediaWiki messages for that language
> >> are all translated already? (Maybe I'm misunderstanding.)
> >
> >[...]
> >
> >It would be useful for the sake of future arguments to have data how
> >people access to particular messages.
> Directly related: <https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T65416#1042471>.
> Though upon re-reading it just now, the specific wording used at
> <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy> is actually
> softer than I thought ("it is recommended" instead of a hard requirement).

Will read Phabricator discussion in the morning...

Regarding LPP wording, as I mentioned above, it's theory. Practice is
pretty hard and was even harder in the past. I remember Robin and I were
waging hard battles for every set we wanted to remove from requirements.

I am sure that's documented somewhere, but I forgot where. It should be
somewhere on Meta.
Wikimedia-l mailing list, guidelines at: 
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimedia-l, 

Reply via email to