Hoi,
Introducing these codes is no problem. It has been agreed that once a language is deemed eligible it remains that way. When a new team comes along it may be good to check the standard again to see if something has changed.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 22 January 2018 at 21:45, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org> wrote:

+1

I concur with Steve's proposal / line of argument concerning "reject as stale" vs "pending / on hold".



On 22-Jan-18 18:05, Steven White wrote:
Mostly, it has to do with the action date. I don't think it makes WMF or LangCom look very good to have dozens of projects that appear to have been pending for over five years, especially when the requester is someone who showed up for a day, or a couple of weeks, and then has disappeared. I think it's much better to make sure the requests that are pending are current ones.

My intention, once I get to requests that are no more than a couple of years old, is to allow projects to remain "on hold" for 1–2 years, and only after that closing them. I'm figuring that if no one shows up in two years, we ought to move on.

Finally, I do intend to make clear on such pages that a future request would be welcomed if a community (re-)appears in the future.




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