Hoi,

yes and we reached consensus about the ones we use. There is a concern and having a two third majority should be no problem. We do have ISO 639-3 macro languages, they should be avoided.

Thanks,

     GerardM

On 4 July 2017 at 20:19, Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com> wrote:

Gerard,

We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags.

Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble.

> On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Hoi,
> In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a two third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having them and we should try to prevent them as they are often more of a political than linguistic reality.
> Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
> On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
> One issue: voting.
>
> == Voting ==
>
> This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or
> you want any addition.
>
> 1) No voting
>
> 1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member
> of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project
> should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
>
> 1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia
> projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no
> significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population
> of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this
> case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
>
> 1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be
> approved without them.
>
> 2) Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
>
> 2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but
> without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers
> ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of
> speakers.)
>
> 2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but
> valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
>
> 2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between
> prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers
> "macrolangauges".)
>
> 2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
>
> 3) 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
>
> 3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in
> possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing
> projects policy [1].
>
> 4) Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
>
> 4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by
> any of the current committee member.
>
> [1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy
> [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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