Proposal for fast approval policy amendment - Langcom

Oliver Stegen

8 Feb 8 Feb

8:27 a.m.

+1 (and sorry, no time right now to "fix the English" of the statement) On 08-Feb-17 02:13, Milos Rancic wrote:

Gerard and I were talking today about this issue. Here is the proposal to be added into the LPP if accepted. Gerard's parts are related to the traditional LangCom requirements, my parts are about the organizations. Feel free to fix my English, add whatever you think it's important for the amendment itself etc. (Asaf, Carlos, you are encouraged to give your input in relation to the organizational part.) Note that this proposal assumes that both Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia organizations would be able to propose a project for fast approval. * * * Fast approval assumes that the Language committee would approve previously eligible first Wikimedia project in particular language under certain conditions without necessity for the project to pass the process inside of Incubator (which usually lasts at least six months, but likely a couple of years). The main condition for fast approval is officially expressed support by particular organization, which would guarantee that the project would be viable for the next two years. Organization has to have the following attributes: * Officially incorporated organization inside of the country where significant population of speakers of the target language live. * Annual and strategic plan. * Track record of successfully finished projects. * Commitment to transparent work. To do that, organization has to do the following: * Translate 500 most common MediaWiki messages in the target language to immediately show its commitment. (NOTE: I think that few hours of translation job is reasonable immediate requirement; we could discuss about it.) * Present to the Language committee the proposal for the project. That could be a program of editathons in particular area, targeting speakers of one or more languages without any Wikimedia project. * Give formal guarantee that the Wikimedia-related work with particular linguistic group will last at least two years. _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Reply

Gerard Meijssen

4:49 p.m.

Hoi, This is something where I am ambivalent. What is it that you want to coordinate? Thanks, GerardM On 8 February 2017 at 17:41, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

One addition which I missed while writing the proposal: "If particular organization is not WMF, a Wikimedia chapter, a Wikimedia thematic organization, a Wikimedia user group or any other Affiliations committee approved organization, it has to make rational efforts to coordinate its Wikimedia-related activities with relevant Wikimedia organizations operating on particular territory." On Wed, Feb 8, 2017 at 9:27 AM, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen(a)sil.org> wrote:

+1 (and sorry, no time right now to "fix the English" of the statement) On 08-Feb-17 02:13, Milos Rancic wrote:

Gerard and I were talking today about this issue. Here is the proposal to be added into the LPP if accepted. Gerard's parts are related to the traditional LangCom requirements, my parts are about the organizations. Feel free to fix my English, add whatever you think it's important for the amendment itself etc. (Asaf, Carlos, you are encouraged to give your input in relation to the organizational part.) Note that this proposal assumes that both Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia organizations would be able to propose a project for fast approval. * * * Fast approval assumes that the Language committee would approve previously eligible first Wikimedia project in particular language under certain conditions without necessity for the project to pass the process inside of Incubator (which usually lasts at least six months, but likely a couple of years). The main condition for fast approval is officially expressed support by particular organization, which would guarantee that the project would be viable for the next two years. Organization has to have the following attributes: * Officially incorporated organization inside of the country where significant population of speakers of the target language live. * Annual and strategic plan. * Track record of successfully finished projects. * Commitment to transparent work. To do that, organization has to do the following: * Translate 500 most common MediaWiki messages in the target language to immediately show its commitment. (NOTE: I think that few hours of translation job is reasonable immediate requirement; we could discuss about it.) * Present to the Language committee the proposal for the project. That could be a program of editathons in particular area, targeting speakers of one or more languages without any Wikimedia project. * Give formal guarantee that the Wikimedia-related work with particular linguistic group will last at least two years. _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

Reply

MF-Warburg

14 Feb 14 Feb

5:44 p.m.

I think this needs some discussion. I'm not really excited about it, but I think you could convince me. 2017-02-08 2:13 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>om>:

...

Gerard and I were talking today about this issue. Here is the proposal to be added into the LPP if accepted. Gerard's parts are related to the traditional LangCom requirements, my parts are about the organizations. Feel free to fix my English, add whatever you think it's important for the amendment itself etc. (Asaf, Carlos, you are encouraged to give your input in relation to the organizational part.) Note that this proposal assumes that both Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia organizations would be able to propose a project for fast approval. * * * Fast approval assumes that the Language committee would approve previously eligible first Wikimedia project in particular language under certain conditions without necessity for the project to pass the process inside of Incubator (which usually lasts at least six months, but likely a couple of years).

I'm surprised that your proposal is to restrict it to the first project. Haven't such ideas come up in the past more frequently for Wikisource, when a Wikipedia already existed? (I recall some things proposed by Gerard).

...

The main condition for fast approval is officially expressed support by particular organization, which would guarantee that the project would be viable for the next two years.

Does that mean the organisation should commit to edit the project? And what if it doesn't do what it guaranteed?

...

Organization has to have the following attributes: * Officially incorporated organization inside of the country where significant population of speakers of the target language live. * Annual and strategic plan. * Track record of successfully finished projects. * Commitment to transparent work. To do that, organization has to do the following: * Translate 500 most common MediaWiki messages in the target language to immediately show its commitment. (NOTE: I think that few hours of translation job is reasonable immediate requirement; we could discuss about it.) * Present to the Language committee the proposal for the project. That could be a program of editathons in particular area, targeting speakers of one or more languages without any Wikimedia project. * Give formal guarantee that the Wikimedia-related work with particular linguistic group will last at least two years.

With these requirements, it doesn't sound too bad. However, when I think of chapters (or whatever) working together with a community to start a new Wikipedia, I always think of the Minangkabau Wikipedia, which started with some action (editathon maybe, I don't remember) from Wikimedia Indonesia, and which quickly got a highly active community, and was approved in record time (three months in Incubator, I think). Doesn't simply proving that the proposed project is good by achieving such an activity in Incubator sound better than first battling around with Langcom about the plan?

Reply

Milos Rancic

17 May 17 May

6:28 p.m.

We've started discussion about this policy on the private list because of one example. I thought we've concluded that, but I see now that MF-Warburg's comments haven't been addressed. Note: When we start voting (after finishing discussion), this will need 2/3 to pass. Although we haven't yet formally defined the exact ratios for particular, it's obvious that we won't go with simple majority in relation to the policy change. On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com> wrote:

...

I think this needs some discussion. I'm not really excited about it, but I think you could convince me. 2017-02-08 2:13 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>om>:

Gerard and I were talking today about this issue. Here is the proposal to be added into the LPP if accepted. Gerard's parts are related to the traditional LangCom requirements, my parts are about the organizations. Feel free to fix my English, add whatever you think it's important for the amendment itself etc. (Asaf, Carlos, you are encouraged to give your input in relation to the organizational part.) Note that this proposal assumes that both Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia organizations would be able to propose a project for fast approval. * * * Fast approval assumes that the Language committee would approve previously eligible first Wikimedia project in particular language under certain conditions without necessity for the project to pass the process inside of Incubator (which usually lasts at least six months, but likely a couple of years).

I'm surprised that your proposal is to restrict it to the first project. Haven't such ideas come up in the past more frequently for Wikisource, when a Wikipedia already existed? (I recall some things proposed by Gerard).

I don't remember that. I think it makes sense to do that with the first project because telling to particular community that they are welcome. Afterwards, they should work on their capacities. Also, Wikisource doesn't seem like a problem, as there is Multilingual Wikisource. Or we want something different?

...

The main condition for fast approval is officially expressed support by particular organization, which would guarantee that the project would be viable for the next two years.

Does that mean the organisation should commit to edit the project? And what if it doesn't do what it guaranteed?

I suppose not to edit, but to organize people to edit. I suppose that they should give us a very good reason why they failed and/or a good reason how their next project could succeed if they want us to listen to them next time. Keep in mind that it would be a serious issue for an average chapter. But, also, keep in mind that this could be just a test project from our side and to analyze success after, let's say, 10 projects created in that way.

...

With these requirements, it doesn't sound too bad. However, when I think of chapters (or whatever) working together with a community to start a new Wikipedia, I always think of the Minangkabau Wikipedia, which started with some action (editathon maybe, I don't remember) from Wikimedia Indonesia, and which quickly got a highly active community, and was approved in record time (three months in Incubator, I think). Doesn't simply proving that the proposed project is good by achieving such an activity in Incubator sound better than first battling around with Langcom about the plan?

I've checked data about Minangkabau [1] and it has 5.5 million of speakers. It is very likely that the most of similar cases would be about languages with much smaller number of speakers (few hundred thousands) and it would be challenging to a chapter to gather enough of editors for a highly active community. Besides that, Siska is an extraordinary manager in that way and was motivated to make a success story. We can't count on such circumstances as a rule. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minangkabau_language

Reply

Milos Rancic

10:43 a.m.

On Thu, May 18, 2017 at 7:33 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:

...

I am not in any particular rush to continue this conversation. The way Milos has rubbed everybody and did not stop and did go on is problematic. For me the whole idea of a language foundation is something not to be desired when it expresses this kind of unworkable radicalism.

Not that I expected better, but it's definitely sad that the relation towards the institutional racism in this group is treated with: active denial, ignoring, avoiding discussion, calling it "radicalism" and, at the best, expressing understanding in private communication, while keeping the line of silence publicly. I agree that the idea of the Languages foundations has become outdated.

...

So let us stall everything for a moment certainly for a month and let us stew on where we are and what we want to achieve and realistically can achieve.

OK. Structural issues of the Language committee will be postponed for a month. We have regular tasks to do in the meantime.

Reply