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