Asaf had written on 07-May-15 3:48 AM (GMT+3):

"Mjbmr: I think you've shared valuable information here, but you do need to exercise more patience with the process. LangCom deals with complex decisions that are relatively high-stakes, in the sense that once things are set in motion they are quite difficult and perhaps impossible to undo/reverse. So deliberation and patience are the natural modes for it."

I concur with his advice. So please be patient and let LangCom do their job. We appreciate your input on the relevant language background. However, any additional messages now detract from the time and energy which LangCom members have available for dealing with the complex decisions we are mandated to make (and this detraction actually includes me writing this message).

Sincerely,
Oliver

On 08-May-15 8:12 PM, Mjbmr wrote:

Can you be more specific please?

On 5/8/2015 7:04 PM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Dear Mjbmr,

Please take Asaf's advice to you in a message of early May 7 (or late May 6) to heart and refrain from comments which are inciting. As it is, you are actually making an agreement between voting LangCom members more difficult with such messages. Thanks for your consideration.

Sincerely,
Oliver

On 08-May-15 10:58 AM, Mjbmr wrote:
Any language member can veto such a highly decision, but if he doesn't do anything and wasting the time, other langcom member better decide. btw, that's why iso639-3 is for, there is no need to discuss this with az project to see if they will allow creation of azb project.

On 5/8/2015 11:42 AM, Oliver Stegen wrote:
Gerard,

I really see the need of LangCom face-to-face meetings as some issues seem to be impossible to discuss by email.
Anyway, in the face of not being able to meet in person, let's try again by this imperfect medium riddled with potential misunderstandings ... *sigh*

How do you propose to receive feedback from az wikipedia? I understand that az wikipedia members are not able to communicate with each other in writing. The recent crisis has shown that the az community is deeply divided. For most LangCom members that seems to be enough evidence to split az wikipedia in two. LangCom has the mandate to make such decisions. Please make a constructive proposal asap so that LangCom will not be accused again to delay urgent matters. Thanks.

Oliver

On 08-May-15 8:08 AM, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
A blanket statements means that I do not put a date on it. So I am dead against without clarification what the az wikipedia wants. Not having this feedback I reserve judgement until a later date.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 7 May 2015 at 22:08, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com> wrote:

On 7 May 2015, at 10:05, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe but there are discussions in parallel and this one affects another. There obvious parallels and I do not want this to be an excuse.

Answer my questions.

Where exactly do you expect feedback? By what date? In what form?

Michael Everson * http://www.evertype.com/

_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom