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 <brion(a)wikimedia.org> 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_Egyptia…
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
Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l