2017-12-10 9:49 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:

Given the current situation, it makes sense to reflect. It is also what you ask. If it helps the process I am in favour to stop the clock and come up with reasonable arguments. I am no longer in favour if that helps to make us reflect on business. Business as usual is not an option.

2017-12-10 19:10 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>:
> Given that we have a problem in the basic functioning of the committee, we'd better find a working relation because that went to pot. You may have taken the role of clerk but without a modus vivendi things will bog down even more. We do not need to accept this case, we have to function and we clearly do not.

What I would like is a discussion about criteria for constructed languages. As I said, I favour having them over case-by-case decisions which will inevitably lead to inconsistencies and perceived unfairness. But, if everyone or most members support Wikipedia in Lingua Franca Nova, I suppose such criteria would say yes to LFN. That's why I don't intend to stop its creation.

It's not really business as usual either because so far we didn't approve any artificial language projects. And so far there was unanimity, so let's not sacrifice it to other discussions. Let's discuss separate topics separately: on one hand, the "working relationship" of the Langcom; on the other, the criteria for constructed languages; on a third (wow) LFN.

2017-12-10 18:29 GMT+01:00 Steven White <koala19890@hotmail.com>:
> But one of the reasons I took on the role of clerk is because so many requests (opening and closing) have been in stasis for months and years, sometimes notwithstanding policy.

This request is being actively discussed (in this thread). It's not like I suggested to shut it down. Nor did Gerard. Requests open for years exist because there is no discussion about them.