Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Daniel Bregman wrote:
Over at Incubator we've been deciding our
policy with regard to
starting new language (of an existing project) tests, and new project
tests.
We've come up with this:
- New languages can create a test on Incubator quite easily, needing
only to get a few people who will help. (
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/I:NTR)
- New
languages can create a full wiki using an approval process on
Incubator, and it will be made (or not) after consensus
has been reached. (
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/I:NLR)
- New projects will need approval from the foundation to have a test
made, and then need further approval to make a full wiki.
Is this acceptable? We are also not sure about what exactly the Foundation
needs to approve. Views we got previously seemed to be slightly
contradictory on this matter.
Thank you for your replies,
Dbmag9 (
http://incubator.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Dbmag9)
Hoi,
In the past we have accepted codes to be used as "language" codes which
were non-existent and have had as a result that we are not in compliance
with the rules of accepted use for the ISO-639 codes. When codes for new
languages are used that are not consistent with the existing ISO-639
codes (all two and three character codes) a language should not be
accepted at all.
Anthere has indicated a few weeks ago that in the end it is the board
that accepts languages and that this process happens at Meta not at the
incubator.
Uh, sorry no. New projects on meta. New languages on incubator. But I
think it is not very important and it is best people who run such things
decide where to put it.
HOWEVER, I see a huge problem with the rules you set up, which are not
consistant with a position the board has tried to hold for some time
now. Artificial languages. According to your rules, anyone (with help of
a few friends or of a few sockpuppets) can re-open the Zorglub language
(oldbies will understand which language is concerned).
So, your proposal needs to mention the issue of constructed languages.
Besides, I see you wrote "The Foundation will also have to approve the
domain". Errrrrrrr. I'd prefer we avoid such bottleneck. How about
something like "if at least 20 votes with a very large majority", no
approval needed. If less votes or less obvious support, then, the
Foundation or the spc must approve before creation ?
Ant
Thanks,
GerardM