+1 (FWIW)
2017-02-06 22:45 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
On Mon, Feb 6, 2017 at 10:19 PM, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 6 Feb 2017, at 20:28, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
I'd support Ancient Greek [grc] as well.
In my view, it would do as well as Latin. Vocabulary would be a matter
for the users.
I am for consistent explicit (if possible) or implicit rules. If one of the relevant rules is the usefulness, then Ancient Greek is definitely more useful than any constructed language.
Alas!, don't the rules say that, if one LangCom member opposes, that
leads to rejection? If that truly is the case, we may need to look into that rule. Maybe, we can settle on something slightly more democratic?
Yes, we have a single-member veto. I'm not sure how useful it is.
I am in favor of making LangCom a normal democratic body: 50%+1 (of those who voted) for regular decisions, 2/3 majority (of those who voted) for changing the rules. ("Of those who voted" because we have u number of inactive members.)
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.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom