Date: Mon, 25 Jun 2018 07:59:21 +0300
From: Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org>
To: Langcom <langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>
Subject: Re: [Langcom] Project requests marked "eligible" that never
        had a test created

As far as I understand, 'eligible' only means that the language in the
proposal has an ISO 639-3 code.
I agree with Gerard that eligibility is not affected by staleness.
Theoretically, a proposal can remain open for as long as someone works
on it sporadically (or if enough content has been created), even if it
doesn't fulfill the other requirements to go live. In that case, such a
proposal would just stay in the incubator.
(I wouldn't be surprised if there are projects that are happy to stay in
the incubator - I myself have one of those, namely lag:wt)

Fwiw,
Oliver


On 20-Jun-18 00:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> As always, eligible means that when people put in the effort and it is
> proven to be that language it will be approved. Stale imho only means
> that a past attempt was not succesful so that we do not have to
> continually monitor it. Eligibility is not affected by staleness.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On 19 June 2018 at 23:14, Steven White <Koala19890@hotmail.com
> <mailto:Koala19890@hotmail.com>> wrote:
>
>     Hi. Please see this comment
>     <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FTalk%3ALanguage_committee%23Some_old_requests_that_don%2527t_have_Incubator_tests_but_also_%25E2%2580%259Celigible%25E2%2580%259D&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf078159a025f4261a27c08d5da933a6c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636655248225099801&sdata=OiS9Rs6bayxIDcVZHfMDtK0qD9Ox6lB5zYQQvqnF0xY%3D&reserved=0>
>     on Meta.
>
>
>     Contributors pointed out three cases in which a request was marked
>     "eligible" (usually long ago), but where a test project was never
>     started. Question I have for you is: Should I leave them alone, or
>     change them to "rejected as stale"?
>
>
>     I can go either way on this. If we were evaluating them now, we'd
>     close them as stale. But my big concern in trying to process all
>     of these requests is to try to clear the backlog of "discussion"
>     and "on hold" requests, because those make us appear as if we're
>     not doing anything. There are many old requests with the status of
>     "eligible" because people work on them only sporadically. In a
>     sense, these are no different.
>
>
>     I'd appreciate some opinions on this.
>
>     Steven
>
>
>     Sent from Outlook <https://nam01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Faka.ms%2Fweboutlook&data=02%7C01%7C%7Cf078159a025f4261a27c08d5da933a6c%7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636655248225099801&sdata=EQSfXnFtMCTjsVJznnhJqBdRCG2WMmlpyOOxUliJpqs%3D&reserved=0>
>
>
>     _______________________________________________
>     Langcom mailing list
>     Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org>