Then explain it.2017-06-13 7:15 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:Hoi,Yes you do.Thanks,GerardMOn 13 June 2017 at 04:42, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com> wrote:The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be decided by a (simple majority) vote. Or do I misunderstand the objection?2017-05-19 3:32 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>:I agree with Gerard. A primary code in BPC 47 would be a rarity, and not something to be adopted here without a proper vote.
Michael Everson
On 19 May 2017, at 01:24, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I do not support the Notion of a simple majority When there is no ISO639 3. I want arguments and eventualy a vote.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
> Forgot one important point:
>
> :''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code.''
> This would be a novelty.
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom