I think that in the case of ancient languages, which no longer have native speakers, we should have the following two criteria additionally to the criterion of an active test project:
* New literature is still being produced and published in the proposed language (whether translated or original)
* The proposed language is taught in a number of institutions like schools or universities.
Gerard's main argument against ancient languages has been the following: "When you insist on reviving a language, it is not the language it used to
be."
In the case of an ancient language that is still used outside of Wikipedia for new pieces of literature, one can say that as a written language it is still "living" (though as a spoken language it can be called "dead"). Inevitably the language is still evolving by accepting new words or phrases (otherwise new pieces of literature wouldn't really be possible). So in that case, Gerard's argument doesn't apply.
Ancient Greek (which started this discussion) is still used for publishing new works, for example the translation of Harry Potter into Ancient Greek. If the language subcomittee now rejects the proposal for Ancient Greek, this is clearly based on a non-neutral point of view. The proposal is not trying to "revive" Ancient Greek - written Ancient Greek probably has never been dead, or if yes, it has already been successfully revived outside of Wikipedia.
Once the two criteria mentioned above are added for the case of ancient languages, the word "native", which is clearly out of place there, can be dropped from the language proposal policy.
I hope that my arguments will be considered by the language subcommittee.
Marcos
--
GMX startet ShortView.de. Hier findest Du Leute mit Deinen Interessen!
Jetzt dabei sein: http://www.shortview.de/?mc=sv_ext_mf@gmx
Hoi,
Today I have had the pleasure of indicating that two request for new Wikis
are "eligible". They are both Wikiversities, one in Finnish and one in
Hungarian. Given the rules for new projects, they are clearly eligible and I
was pleased to find that both languages had most of the localisation already
been done. It is a pleasure because it means that all the projects in these
languages benefit from the work done.
What I find really interesting is that three academic institutions are going
to be involved in the Finnish Wikiversity. This gives on the face of it the
project a flying start. :) It is also something quite special to have
organisations involved in WMF projects.
At the bottom of the request for new languages page, you find the projects
that are "closed". This means that they are either rejected or approved or
created. Closed is very much seen from the perspective of the language
committee as for the projects themselves it very much starts when the
projects are created. The problem I want to share with you is that for
proper closure, approved projects have to be created.
For the language committee we are about to consider again what projects may
be given approval. It is important for the health of this process that once
a project is approved by the board it is created, my question is what more
can we do to ensure that the process is completed in a timely fashion?
Thanks,
GerardM
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Hunga…http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikiversity_Finni…http://translatewiki.net/wiki/Translating:Group_statisticshttp://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages#Recently_closed
The folks at Creative Commons have posted a draft statement of intent
regarding the CC-BY-SA license:
http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Draft_Attribution-ShareAlike_Intent
I've just read through it, and I'm really, really happy. Through this
statement, CC has taken a first stab at defining in detail their
intentions as stewards of the license. This is key to building trust
with the Wikimedia community and other stakeholders in the free
culture movement.
The statement of intent clarifies a number of key points, including a
commitment to keep the license in compliance with the Definition of
Free Cultural Works, and a strong promise to only broaden, but not
narrow the definition of what constitutes an adaptation under the
terms of the license.
We are continuing our conversations about that particular aspect, and
my personal hope is that we will figure out a way to clearly state
through the license that adaptations such as a picture embedded into a
newspaper article trigger the share-alike clause, i.e. the newspaper
article would be CC-BY-SA licensed. (Or, as I would argue, in those
particular cases, any other DFCW compliant license.)
You can post comments regarding the draft on the wiki talk page, or on
the cc-licenses mailing list:
http://lists.ibiblio.org/mailman/listinfo/cc-licenses
This is a really important development, and I hope that everyone who
cares about the future of free culture licenses will get involved in
these conversations. :-)
My congratulations go to Creative Commons for taking this initiative.
--
Erik Möller
Deputy Director, Wikimedia Foundation
Support Free Knowledge: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate
----- Original Message ----
From: Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever(a)yahoo.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Saturday, April 5, 2008 10:01:31 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?
I noticed that the present discussion started as an answer to the rejection of the ancient greek wikipedia. and i haven't seen a hard defence like this project.
i think is due to the ancient greek is always a special case. as the quote of Edward Sapir found in the classical language article of wikipedia; the ancient greek is with latin, classical chinese, arabic and sanskrit is the foundation of all the culture of the whole world,
and the modern world refers to them, all the time.
I ask to the subcommitte:
if the discussion provide good reason to the project of ancient language. it's possible a reconsideration of the rejection of ancient greek Wikipedia, and others projects of ancient language like classical japanese or ottomanic turkish that were proposed, too?.
J. case
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
----- Original Message ----
From: Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever(a)yahoo.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 4:50:37 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?
<<<
----- Original Message ----
From: Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Tuesday, April 1, 2008 3:17:58 PM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Allow new wikis in extinct languages?
On Wed, Apr 2, 2008 at 5:04 AM, Pharos <pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, Mar 29, 2008 at 5:33 PM, Mark Williamson <node.ue(a)gmail.com> wrote:
For Latin, it is obvious. The latest Roman Missal was published in
2002. If you can argue it is not so much different from the second
latest one, it had been published in 1962. Reflecting the so-called
2nd Vatican Counsil and its reformation, 1962 version, or Novus Ordo
is very known of its differences from the earlier versions. Or we can
refer to CCC or several motu proprios which the Vatican has issued.
On the other hand, Coptic Church doesn't seem to be enthusiastic to
issue their documents in Coptic. As for the Orthodox, I don't know any
church in the Slavic tradition using Church Slavic as their document
language, while still today it is the language of liturgy and the
Scrupture and many prayers, and Churches in Greek tradition don't use
Attic dialect as far as I know.
There is a good reason Latin learners can be allowed to entertain
their linguistic ability on this project, I think. Anyway, even in a
narrow region, it is still used and viable to carry ideas.
>>>
in fact, the language of work of the greek ortodoxox is the same of the new testament, the Koine dialectos. it is not exactly attic greek, but is still ancient greek. it is still more alive that many think. and it continued creating new vocabulary of modern things and concepts that replace the "barbarian" words. although many westerns bent to kill it.
A curiosity. harry potter is translated in ancient greek. with the collection is going to be translated
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
I realized now that approving changes of WMF's bylaws should be solved
out of VC. If the best option is to ask the community (which that part
of the resolution for VC proposes), then I think that the best idea is
to ask the community directly. As the same mechanism would be used as
for electing boards members, I think that there shouldn't be an big
changes in the legal sense.
Ray writes:
> I very seriously doubt if anyone has done this. The emphasis thus
> far
> has been on bootstrapping a group that could deal with the complex
> issues surrounding the operation of a Volunteer Council; the legal
> environment would be one of those issues. For the Provisional Council
> to function it's not really necessary since it has no real power
> itself.
That's why I focused on the Volunteer Council aspect of the
resolution, because, even though the Provisional Council supposedly
has no power in itself, it will have been charged by the Board to
create a Volunteer Council that does. To take only one example,
consider this provision of the proposal: "3) Approving changes to the
articles of incorporation or bylaws of the Wikimedia Foundation."
That's a significant structural change, and needs to be legally
researched. And it's clear that the PC's focus is to create a
permanent change in this provision: "On receipt of the said report
the Board shall take such steps as it deems necessary to confirm and
empower the Volunteer Council, and provide for a transition of
operations from the Provisional Volunteer Council." So it's clear
that the Volunteer Council is to be "empowered" in a permanent way
that will affect corporate governance, and there will be a "transition
of operations," which surely wouldn't be required if the "operations"
weren't, uh, operationally important (i.e., "real power).
My understanding of what is planned is based on a line-by-line reading
of the Volunteer Council proposal in its entirety, which the Board is
being asked to approve.
> I don't think you're missing anything. My own personal preference
> for
> two-tier governance was expressed when incorporating WMF was still in
> the planning stage, but I would hesitate to push my own vision of how
> this might work. At this stage all we have is an assortment of
> individual visions.
That may be the case, but I've seen what I think is the only actual
draft proposed resolution, and I know from experience that when
there's only one draft proposal, and a group gets together to discuss
one draft, some version of the draft is what's most likely to be
approved.
> I don't think that you can expect a coherent group
> vision of governance until the Provisional Council has had an
> opportunity to synthesize a common position of its members. For now I
> view change in corporate structure as no more than one possibility
> among
> many.
Is everyone already agreed that the lack of "a coherent group vision
of governance" is the problem?
The reason I ask is, I think that if the problem to be addressed is
how to institutionalize community feedback and creative input, that's
a problem that can be solved apart from formal changes in governance.
Similarly, if the problem is that the Board needs more professional
expertise to draw upon, that's a separate problem that also can be
solved in ways that don't require governance changes. But right now
the primary focus -- based on the language of the proposal itself --
seems to be on "change in corporate structure," even though, as you
correctly note, it is "no more than one possibility among many."
--Mike
Seems acceptable.
----- Original Message ----
From: Aphaia <aphaia(a)gmail.com>
To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List <foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
Sent: Thursday, April 3, 2008 9:19:28 AM
Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] VC - alternative resolution
Sounds nice. Not aggressive but giving a framework for the forming
working group.
On Thu, Apr 3, 2008 at 10:37 PM, Nathan <nawrich(a)gmail.com> wrote:
> Given some of the concerns that have been raised, I'd like to propose
> an alternative resolution for consideration.
>
> "The Board of Trustees, by the passage of this resolution, endorses
> the creation of a committee of community members to provide guidance
> on the issue of a Volunteer Council.
>
> The committee is charged by the Board to consider and report on
> the following points:
>
> * Determine if there are needs in the community that necessitate
> the creation of the Volunteer Council or similar body and identify these
> needs specifically
> * The role of the body in addressing the identified needs
> * The structure and role of the Volunteer Council within the Wikimedia
> Foundation
> * How the Council should be convened, and what mechanism should
> be created for its dissolution if any
> * Other issues important to the creation and operation of the Volunteer
> Council as identified by the committee
>
> The committee on the Volunteer Council will consist of volunteers
> selected by the committee facilitator - identified by the Board as
> Lodewijk Gelauff. Reports on the activity and progress of the
> committee should be submitted to the Board monthly.
>
> On September 1st, 2008, the Board requests that the committee
> present a complete report that addresses each point outlined above
> in full. The Board thanks the committee in advance for its service,
> and recognizes the valuable work that has already been done by
> Lodewijk Gelauff on this issue."
>
> I think that a resolution of this fashion sidesteps some specific problems:
>
> 1) It doesn't create the Volunteer Council prematurely
> 2) It doesn't have legal implications - the committee has no formal
> authority but does have the imprimatur of the Board
> 3) It creates the working group sought to make a determination, and
> sets a specific timeline for progress and resolution
> 4) It allows the committee to request resources such as a private
> mailing list
>
> Thoughts? Criticism?
>
> Nathan
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
____________________________________________________________________________________
You rock. That's why Blockbuster's offering you one month of Blockbuster Total Access, No Cost.
http://tc.deals.yahoo.com/tc/blockbuster/text5.com
Dear all,
I am very glad that the proposal for establishing a provisional
volunteer council received such a lot support both on this list as in
private conversations.
Since the request for candidates for the Provisional Volunteer
Council, I received quite some nominations. However, unfortunately I
have to admit that there were no (willing) candidates from some
important regions amongst these. As I have to work with the candidates
that were nominated, I was therefore unable to candidate someone from
these regions.
I did try however, to get at least a few projects represented, and
also a more technical person (from the developers side of the
volunteer spectrum). Please find my final suggestion list below in the
proposal (attached again for reference - only one minor spelling and
layout changes).
Please note that this is a *proposed* resolution, and not yet accepted.
I know this list is not very long. And some area's are still missing
in representation. However, I trust this group wholehearely, and
suppose that they will make sure as a first thing to get at least one
or more projects better represented (such as Wikinews or Wikiversity
which have a very different character).
If you have major concerns with respect to this list of candidates,
please send them to this list or communicate them to the Board (I am
not sure which route is the best for that though). I will make no
changes any more myself, but the Board is of course able to determine
the list as it likes.
With kind regards,
Lodewijk Gelauff
--------------------------------------------------------------
Whereas the Board,
* recognizes the value of volunteers in Wikimedia projects and that
their work is the very reason of their success,
* values the volunteers' opinions and takes them into serious
consideration when discussing issues involving the volunteers,
* is of the opinion that these volunteers should have a strong say in
changes in the articles of incorporation and the bylaws of the
Wikimedia Foundation,
* considers a Volunteer Council a valuable intermediary between
volunteers and the Foundation, and as a good instrument to hear the
voice of the volunteers:
it is hereby resolved that:
1. The Board of Trustees hereby creates a Volunteer Council, to serve
as a valuable complement to the Staff, Advisory Board and Board of
Trustees.
2. Without restricting the generality of this provision the purposes
of the Volunteer Council shall include:
1) Offering advice and support on issues relevant to the Wikimedia Volunteers,
2) Recommanding the opening or closure of Wikimedia projects,
3) Approving changes to the articles of incorporation or bylaws of
the Wikimedia Foundation and
4) Assist in establishing a clear separation between the legal
responsibilities of the Wikimedia Foundation as an Internet Service
Provider and the community decisions for the Wikimedia Projects.
3. The members from the Volunteer Council must be volunteers within Wikimedia.
4. The Provisional Volunteer Council shall report to the Board no
later than September 1, 2008, which report shall include
recommendations regarding the number and composition of the Volunteer
Council, and how the members of the Council shall be chosen. Said
report shall also include recommendations regarding the distribution
of rights and responsibilities between the Board and Council, and any
changes in the by-laws that may be necessary to implement this.
5. Except where it pertains to its own procedures, no decision of the
Provisional Volunteer Council shall bind any person.
6. On receipt of the said report the Board shall take such steps as it
deems necessary to confirm and empower the Volunteer Council, and
provide for a transition of operations from the Provisional Volunteer
Council.
7. Members of the Volunteer Council will not be financially
compensated for their activity. On approval by the Board of Trustees
expenses of the Provisional Volunteer Council and Volunteer Council in
the fulfillment of their duties may be reimbursed.
8. The following people are hereby appointed as member of the
Provisional Volunteer Council:
Michael Bimmler, Mbimmler (Main project: de.wikipedia)
Yaroslav Blanter, Yaroslav Blanter (Main project: ru.wikipedia)
Lise Broer, Durova (Main projects: en.wikipedia and commons.wikimedia )
Jesse Plamondon-Willard, Pathoschild (Main projects: en.wikisource
and meta.wikimedia )
Sydney Poore, FloNight (Main project: en.wikipedia)
Milos Rancic, Millosh (Main project: sr.wikipedia)
Ray Saintonge, Eclecticology (Main project: en.wikisource, en.wikipedia)
Andrew Whitworth, Whiteknight (Main project: en.wikibooks)
Michal Zlatkovsky, Timichal (Main project: cs.wikipedia)
9. The members of the Provisional Volunteer Council may on a 2/3 vote
of all its members add such additional members as they may deem
necessary and useful to their deliberations.
Philippe Beaudette writes:
> My conclusion is that the members below (as
> well as any others the Board wishes to appoint) should become a
> working
> group - not a provisional council - and determine what the heck a VC
> would
> do, clear it legally, and begin to define the process of appointing
> people
> to it. That does not, I believe, require a resolution this wordy or
> with
> this level of detail.
I don't see why a self-appointed working group even needs a Board
resolution. Such a group could meet, engage other community members,
and so on, and continue to discuss and develop proposals without the
Board's having to do anything.
--Mike