On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
We had in the past really well functioning languages that were also shifted to Wikia. It is all part and parcel of the original idea of the policy to prevent the easy creation of new projects. This was needed because at the time there was a groundswell of sentiment to prevent new projects all together.
When one member of the committee says "NO", it will not happen. Wen doubts are raised it is not no. So please be clear what your intentions are.
True. Here is my more precise position.
My basic position is on the Amir's line: So weak against ("Wikia should be good enough") that I don't want to be the one who blocks it. However, for me it *is* mandatory to have a good reasoning in favor. That's why I asked Michael to make one. I see that as mandatory because of the future request.
There is a tiny line, invisible from both sides, which differs relevant institutions from irrelevant ones. LangCom exists to keep Wikimedia relevant institution in relation to the languages. I would define relevancy as.
We are still on the relevant side and LFN is one of the possible lines and we need to make a good decision here. And I have to say that what Amir's said about LFN doesn't sound promising at the moment.