Hoi,
* Why is it improperly labeled? This helps to prevent issues in the future.
* The mailing list of the language committee is available for members of the
language committee only. The language committee works by full consensus,
consequently when any one objects to something that needs approval, it is
not approved. So consequently we do not have anything to show for you, but
as has been indicated befor,e at the time when the status of eligibility
was to be decided for Egyptian Arabic, the question was raised by me if it
should be considered eligible and this was discussed on the list, the answer
we agreed on was "yes".
* I do not know who told you that only two members discussed this but given
the way that only one voice is enough to prevent something from going
through, it does not need much discussion when people approve.
* So we do discuss things when we find a need for it.
* What we do not find is that when requests are approved and accepted by the
board that they are created. It is not the first time that this proved a
problem.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Brion Vibber <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> > Hoi,
> > While you are at it, please have a look at bug 15013... It has been
> waiting
> > today for 121 days.. 121 days after registering in Bugzilla. If there are
> > any issues please let them be known.
> >
> > https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15013
>
> 1) The bug was improperly labeled and could not be found when searching
> specifically for the request. This likely didn't help it to receive any
> attention! :)
>
> 2) Can you show us the language committee's open discussion and
> consensus summary in favor of this setup?
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives shows no
> evidence of any official discussion nor record of a decision.
>
> The unofficial discussion I do see at:
>
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
> seems very inconclusive.
>
> I've been told that only two members of the committee discussed and
> approved it, which doesn't seem to match with the spirit of the
> committee, which has 11 members per
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee
>
> The reason we created a language subcommittee in the first place was to
> have an official body in which several people could have a discussion,
> come to a consensus among themselves, and hammer out a solid conclusion
> instead of letting these things simmer on for ages with different
> opinions remaining open.
>
> If that's not clearly going on, then we should make sure the committee
> gets back on track.
>
> - -- brion
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
> Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
> Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
>
> iEYEARECAAYFAkkfcEQACgkQwRnhpk1wk47BzwCgy+MrDMdcsTMhxvdrKUYQmtN1
> Xh0An3e/bUh8zcle9Cyaq5cqRSK5gUXk
> =noNz
> -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
>
> _______________________________________________
> Wikitech-l mailing list
> [email protected]
> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
>
_______________________________________________
Wikitech-l mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
