Thank you for this, Steven, and thanks for all the great work you have done
for us so far. I agree that this is a sensible change – we should be
ashamed that it has taken us this long to get moving on these languages,
and we need to do better.
One thing that I believe we have been reluctant to in the past is accepting
experts referred by the communities themselves. However, I feel like that
would be something that could be changed as long as we are able to
independently verify such experts' credentials. Don't know how/if that
could be worked into the LPP somehow?
tir. 20. aug. 2019 kl. 19:31 skrev Steven White <koala19890(a)hotmail.com>om>:
Gerard wrote:
<start>
Hoi,
Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to
expect a result.
Thanks,
GerardM
<end>
For the current instance, based on where we are now, Amir's estimation is
fine. As long as someone is actually trying to follow up on these projects,
and gives a reasonable estimate as to how long it will take, I'm fine.
James's question, and mine, is more around the big picture. Please
remember that three of the four projects we are talking about here (Guiane
Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Tacawit Wiktionary) were identified in an email I
wrote on 17 December 2018 (about eight months ago) as already being
provisionally approved and awaiting language verification. The fourth (Mon
WP) is perhaps a month newer. But 7-8 months and longer—Saraiki WP was
provisionally approved in October 2018—is absolutely not reasonable by any
standard. Quite frankly, I was desperate to do something to move these
along, because being nice and playing by the rules was doing absolutely
nothing. (Remember, too, that I wrote pleasant, polite reminders to the
committee about these four projects on March 14 and June 6.) I'm sorry,
Gerard, that you didn't like me doing what I did. But what I did is far
less objectionable than requiring communities to wait this long for us to
complete language verification.
To that end, I am proposing the following amendment to the provision about
language verification. I am open to some adjustments, but allowing projects
to sit this long and wait *for us* is just not acceptable. Where this
amendment is to be added is in the Language Committee's Handbook, Final
Approval
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval>,
item #2. Subitem #3 is to be followed by new subitem #4:
4. The Language Committee has 30 days from the time a project is
provisionally approved—meaning: approved, except for language
verification—to identify and contact an expert for the language
verification. If no expert is contacted within 30 days, then on the
assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. If an
expert is contacted within 30 days, the Language Committee has an
additional 60 days to obtain the final language verification. If no
language verification (or failure of language verification) is received by
then, on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally
approved. Overall, any project for which the Language Committee has failed
to get language verification (or failure of language verification) within
90 days will be approved on the assumption of good faith.
I think this gives us plenty of time to do what we need to do, without
requiring communities to wait on us for months without comment. This would
apply for all projects receiving provisional approval from this point on.
But in parallel, given that Amir started working on these four projects
around August 15, I would also propose that if we have not finalized
language verification by October 15, these four projects also be finally
approved.
Steven
Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom