Hoi,

Everything per the previous agreements are fine. So yes, we can have projects when they have a valid ISO-639-3 code. When there is a problem with this, it needs discussion. When someone objects and finds that the arguments are not convincing better arguments need to be found.

Eligibility is the first phase of what we do. When a project is rejected as ineligible, it is final. The next phase is with localisation and enough articles.. It is very much to be understood that there are different approaches to Wikipedia articles. I have proposed in the past that with generated articles (cached not saved) we can do a lot more in providing the sum of all knowledge. We have seen in one of the constructed languages a lot of articles means a lot of traffic (not bot).

In this next phase we may also find organisations that are willing to adopt a language and can convince us to make a difference. This failed in the past for CIS.. :(

We have a policy whereby secondary projects require really strong commitment. I have asked to change this for Wikisource because this is NOT an end user project but much more a project for editors.

As it is we have no mandate for closing projects. All we can do is suggest to the board with arguments why a specific project is to be closed. We have done this only once.

I do not care for percentages of expressed opinion. We need convincing arguments and we have shown plenty times that we can be convinced. So there is no need to change this.

When we change our policy, it requires board approval. Therefore once we agree on a proposal, it needs to be presented with arguments to the board for approval.

Thanks,

GerardM

On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com> wrote:

One issue: voting.

== Voting ==

This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or
you want any addition.

1) No voting

1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member
of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project
should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.

1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia
projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no
significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population
of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this
case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.

1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be
approved without them.

2) Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)

2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but
without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers
ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of
speakers.)

2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but
valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)

2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between
prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers
"macrolangauges".)

2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.

3) 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)

3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in
possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing
projects policy [1].

4) Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)

4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by
any of the current committee member.

[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy
[2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy

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