Circling back to an email time-stamped Thu Mar 14 18:29:07 UTC 2019, I would note that there are still four projects sitting and waiting for language verification: Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya) Wiktionary. And as a community member notes<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_committee#WP_Incubator_test_w…>, it's really been quite a long time that these projects are waiting.
Guiane Creole is my fault, as I need to get in touch with the expert whose name I was given. I know that MF-W was looking into a couple of the others. Has there been any luck on any of these? I have the names of some experts on Tacawit that I can share with someone who might be willing to contact them (if I haven't already). I really need a Committee member or two to step up and follow up on these. I don't consider myself enough of an expert to handle this issue.
Important question: How long is "too long" at this stage before we concede that the delays are our fault, and that we should assume good faith and approve the projects without an explicit language validation?
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
I never went back and closed this. The recommendation that I made in an email time-stamped Wed Apr 24 16:09:43 UTC 2019 was this:
* I think we need to leave the content of zhwikisource alone now, but allow additional lzh content on oldwikisource, with rules against duplication.
* By process of elimination, I'd recommend "placing on hold" for now. I really don't see consensus coalescing here. Also, I think there's a good enough chance that this test never goes anywhere that we may as well wait to see what happens before committing to a decision. (And, to tell the truth, in most cases like this, where there is little actual activity in the test, that's what we actually usually do until there is proof of activity.)
* If you're not willing to do that, I would go for "eligible" IF AND ONLY IF that doesn't mean we're committing to the future of any existing content either way. In principle, this lzh ought to be eligible, and there's nothing wrong with saying so. But if we think that "eligible" automatically means that content MUST be moved in the future if an lzhwikisource is created, then I would "reject", because I don't think that moving content out of zhwikisource will ever be a viable option.
MF-Warburg and Michael supported this, while Gerard opposed. Does anyone else have an opinion? If not, I will go ahead and mark this proposal as "on hold", as outlined here.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
I was quite busy IRL during May. There were a number of things open at the end of April that I need the Committee to circle back to.
The first item is the revision to the Language Proposal Policy, which can be found here<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_proposal_policy/4-2019_proposed_re…>. As you may recall, the most controversial piece of my original proposal had to do with non-Wikisource projects in ancient and historical languages. But that piece was removed before I took the proposal to the community at Meta. The result was a revision proposal that was mostly technical, in that it codified certain existing practices already being used by LangCom but not explicit in the Policy.
The discussion can be found here<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_proposal_policy/4-2019_propos…>. There were two serious "oppose" !votes, but both focused on items that were not included in the proposed changes at all: (i) changing the requirement for an ISO 639–3 code, and (ii) ancient/historical language projects. Otherwise, the community was basically fine with the proposed changes. There were some suggestions for changing the wording a bit, and I incorporated most of those. Since the wording changed a bit, I'd like the Committee to have a look and make sure it is OK with the revision proposal as now worded. If there are no objections in seven days, I will go ahead and implement.
Steven
Sent from Outlook<http://aka.ms/weboutlook>