Are there further comments about this? I'd invite those of you who want to change parts of the policy to edit < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy%3E directly to address your concerns.
2017-06-13 19:20 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
On 13 Jun 2017, at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First there is no agreement.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living languages there is no
need for a vote.
That’s our rules, yes.
Third, for other ISO-639-3 languages there is a need for a vote.
I suppose there are living languages with few if any users and other languages with potentially very many.
Compelling arguments are needed and a two third majority is reasonable.
What does everyone feel about this?
Fourth for codes that do not have an ISO-639-3 code the standard answer
is no. Without proper arguments this should not happen.
And this is the BPC 47 thing. That’s a very important and widely-implemented standard. If the 639 Agency had refused Elfdalian, we would have created a primary tag for it. That would be a situation where a non-standard answer might be useful.
Michael _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom