Hoi,
We do say "yes" occasionally and while we were created to stop a flood we are happy to say this happens. The policy says what it does. The fact is that when people write thoughtful stuff, they are welcome to write so Jan, happy to have seen and read your thoughts.

There are people who want to change the policy.. As long as it is in a comprehensive way I do not mind but when it is only to change our voting ways I object. It does not make sense to do that; it should be part of something larger. It will also be something where the board has to give its approval.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 7 February 2017 at 18:57, Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren.jan@gmail.com> wrote:
> We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are heard. So effectively you are part of what we do. 

Not entirely. The page https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee writes explicitly: "Non-members should generally not participate in discussions. When it is necessary however, they can send a mail which a list administrator will need to accept manually." Not that I mind being moderated, but to put it bluntly, writing a message feels pretty much like being an intruder.

> The language committee was created to say "no". 

Hm, perhaps I am wrong, but isn't the language committee also there to say "yes" every once in a while? Mind, I can follow your logic. If one member saying "no" means the whole committee says "no", it makes sense to limit the number of members to a bare minimum, because otherwise saying "no" is likely to become all the committee will ever do. I agree that for normal issues a majority vote would be a much better solution. While I agree with Amir that voting is not the solution for all problems, giving each individual member the right to veto any progress is a solution even worse.

Besides, I read that a quite a few members are completely inactive, which shouldn't come as a surprise if you consider that members are basically appointed for life. Given the fact that (except for Satdeep Gill) not a single new member has been added since 2012, I thought it might be a good idea to change that. That's why I am offering my expertise and help in speeding things up.

Cheers,
Jan



2017-02-07 7:46 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
Hoi,
As it is we have a policy whereby anyone can say "no" and it is no. We have a mailing list where anyone can write to and arguments are heard. So effectively you are part of what we do. 

The language committee was created to say "no". This has proven to be effective. From the later projects there are fewer failures. As such the language works as designed.

While some may think that I am obstinate about the GRC issue, the same opinion I have about proposals that I made. That is however how the cookie crumbles.

So YES, I value your input and NO I think we should not add another person that is enabled to say no.

It is not personal. Quite the contrary however, when we are to change the policy we should overhaul it properly and discuss all the issues we face with the current policy.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 7 February 2017 at 01:48, Jan van Steenbergen <ijzeren.jan@gmail.com> wrote:
> Also, unlike a decade ago, LangCom has expert legitimacy and integrity
> now, as well as a decade of experience. That's the reason why I don't
> think that any group would use majority as a tool to push unreasonable 
> decisions.

Speaking of which... Would it be possible for me to apply for membership of the Langcom? I've been following the discussions on this mailing list for about two years now, and I hope I might be helpful to you.

A short introduction:

My name is Jan van Steenbergen, I'm 46 years old and I live in IJmuiden, the Netherlands. I work as a professional translator and interpreter Polish <> Dutch. Linguistics is both my work and my hobby. My main fields of interest are Slavic languages, constructed languages, Cyrillic and Eastern Europe. My "language package" can be found on my user page: https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:IJzeren_Jan (mind, the languages listed there are those that I have actually learned to some degree – there are dozens of other languages I can understand, or know the basics of).

I've been editing Wikipedia sporadically since 2003 as an anonymous user, and have been more active after I created my first user account in 2004. My home wiki is nlwiki, where I am currently an admin. I've been editing several other language versions as well, but less frequently.

As I already explained in my post about Lingua Franca Nova, when it comes to the question whether a language should be allowed to have its own wiki or not, my primary criterion would be viability/sustainability. In other words, does a potential project have good perspectives for success? Obviously, a large community of native speakers is a good thing to start with, but if a language has 50 mln. speakers and there is nobody willing to work on a wiki, then the project is doomed to become a failure anyway. What we surely want to avoid is dead wikis where practically every article is just three or four words. On the other hand, if a language has no native speakers at all, yet it is still able to generate a prospering wiki, then I am all for it. Even a wiki in a language without native speakers can become a success, provided that the language is well-documented, stable and complete, and provided that there are enough people willing to work on it. As far as I am concerned, if a language is doing well in the Incubator for a longer period, that means it has passed the exam.

Best regards,
Jan van Steenbergen


_______________________________________________
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