Oh, so you propose, for eligible languages with ISO 639-3 codes, to have them all in the list "Request for new languages" on Meta, regardless of how inactive they are, but without necessarily any presence on incubator (unless some native speaker starts the project there)? Well, if the others agree, why not?

Cheers,
Oliver


On 23-Jan-18 11:28, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
There is a difference between rejecting existing projects on the incubator because they are stale and our consideration for eligibility. I do not mind having projects removed from Incubator. It has never been a real consideration of the language committee what happens there.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 23 January 2018 at 11:01, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org> wrote:

Hm, I'm not so sure about that. If "once a language is eligible it remains that way" holds, why do we need proposals at all? We might just as well create incubator space for every language with a ISO 639-3 code. While it is my vision that we will, one day, have wikis in every language, I don't think cluttering the incubator with projects which remain inactive for years is helpful. So I keep my support of Steve's proposal to mark projects as "reject as stale" if they were proposed by a once person without subsequent action.

Fwiw,
Oliver


On 23-Jan-18 08:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
Introducing these codes is no problem. It has been agreed that once a language is deemed eligible it remains that way. When a new team comes along it may be good to check the standard again to see if something has changed.
Thanks,
     GerardM

On 22 January 2018 at 21:45, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org> wrote:

+1

I concur with Steve's proposal / line of argument concerning "reject as stale" vs "pending / on hold".



On 22-Jan-18 18:05, Steven White wrote:
Mostly, it has to do with the action date. I don't think it makes WMF or LangCom look very good to have dozens of projects that appear to have been pending for over five years, especially when the requester is someone who showed up for a day, or a couple of weeks, and then has disappeared. I think it's much better to make sure the requests that are pending are current ones.

My intention, once I get to requests that are no more than a couple of years old, is to allow projects to remain "on hold" for 1–2 years, and only after that closing them. I'm figuring that if no one shows up in two years, we ought to move on.

Finally, I do intend to make clear on such pages that a future request would be welcomed if a community (re-)appears in the future.




_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom



Virus-free. www.avg.com 


_______________________________________________
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