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

On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: Bit of offtopic, but are there actually any howtos how to correctly label your bugs e.g. for config changes, wiki creation etc. so that these do not get overlooked?

Why would you be searching for it? If you already know about the request you don't need the bug report at all. Surely whoever's job it is to create projects should just be going through the relevant component and seeing what projects need creating? Is that not the whole point of having a component system?

Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.

Hoi, There is a strong sentiment against allowing for the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia by those who prefer a unified Arabic Wikipedia. They have used all kinds of arguments but in essence they refuse others to work on what is after all a recognised separate language. When they argue that it will fracture the effort for the Arabic Wikipedia, they forget that it is not their time and effort they are directing. When they argue that not much is written in Egyptian Arabic, they forget that this is no different for many languages like Limburgian as well. Their problem is that their view of a world where everyone speaks the same language is at odds with how it is perceived others. There is a request for an Egyptian Arabic Wiktionary in the pipe line and with 99,81% for the MediaWiki messages and 97.51% they have demonstrated their comitment to this effort. It is all the more remarkable because they do not have their Wikipedia yet. It is a clear testament to their wish to do well for their language. The point of the language committee is that it has the remit to decide on these issues.Consequently there are situations where some will not agree what it is that the committee decides and it means that there will be no public consensus. This is to be expected and accepted. Brion, when you have specific questions as to the approval of Egyptian Arabic, raise them. What you are doing is calling the process itself into doubt. As it is clear that you are not familiar with the process in the first place, the policy as it is does not allow for extinct and constructed languages and you write that such languages are created, I think you should create the arz.wikipedia.org. Thanks, GerardM On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Brion Vibber <brion(a)wikimedia.org> wrote: _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

Hello, Gerard is emotional because for him somehow all boils down to freedom of speech. I had an argument earlier with him on foundation-I and questioned the process and he would repeatedly go to "why do you want to inhibit the freedom of others when no one is trying to do the same to you". I tried to point out this is pretty irrelevant to what I am asking to no avail. I asked whether I could see the deliberation of LangCom regarding this case when he said 'Langcom took into account all the issues you raised while making a decision' but he said those are confidential (even Ting raised an objection to that!), and then later on said the 'deliberations' consisted of him declaring it on the mailing list and no one objected. Regardless of the issue of Masry, I for one would like to see more transparency out of langcom, I would like to see the deliberations of its members archived somewhere and I would like to see what are the rules of discussions (like what Brion said about the minimum of ppl required for a discussion). Posting a proposal and recieving no answer doesnt necessarily mean everyone considered the subject, it may also mean that they didnt. Also, if that is your process, how do you determine when a member of langcom becomes inactive? On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader <bilalak(a)gmail.com taking used not a and demonstrated to on agree no into and up. -- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gerard Meijssen wrote: waiting 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 _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 Gerard Meijssen wrote: future. As noted in other response -- the summary didn't refer to the language requested, so could not be easily found or prioritized in response to inquiries. the but it answer How many people actually, actively, agreed to it, and on what basis? given As an operational matter, we need to be able to rely on the langcom's decisions to carry weight, or else we have to do more individual research into your requests, which means we can't respond to them as quickly as you'd like. If a failure to discuss is taken as approval, this may indicate that the committee's process is dysfunctional. Typically, a quorum (minimum number of discussion participants) is required to ensure that adequate attention has been paid to requests. Does the language committee currently have a quorum requirement? What is it, and was it reached in this particular discussion? the Please note that setup of language subdomains of existing project sites is totally outside the scope of the business of the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation. The business of the board is to set a direction for the company, hire an executive to manage the day-to-day operations of the company moving in that direction, and provide oversight of how well the company is doing that job and whether the company is spending donor money effectively. If operational requests you care about are behind, don't waste your or the board's time invoking the board -- come to me directly and ask what's the hold-up. In this case, the general hold-up for a long time was simply that the tech team was spending most effort on low-level site operations; reconfiguration and new wiki setup requests were handled either by volunteer admins doing general housecleaning on the queue, or by direct handling of a particular request brought to our attention. Apparently this particular request was either unseen or uninteresting to volunteer admins going through the queue, and no one reached out specifically to us about it. We're now clearing out general backlogs and are trying to ensure that the requests are legitimate -- there's nothing less fun than changing a site configuration or setting up a new language site and then finding out the community didn't actually want it! If the existing infrastructure for language setup approval is not working effectively at establishing a firm consensus, I'd like to make sure we fix that process -- it'll be easier on everybody. Approved requests will carry more weight, they'll get taken care of faster, and we're less likely to have to reverse something already set up. - -- brion _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

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?

I won't repeat the arguments against the creation of arz.* , they are at meta and ar.wp for those interested. language committee is clearly wrong this time. creation of arz.* can be described in the following: while ( sun rises everyday ) { echo "Bad idea."; } -- --alnokta _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l

When you continue enable FalggedRevs on remaining projects?