On Wed, Feb 1, 2017 at 7:44 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)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.