Imho, it would be helpful to have a link to the amended proposal, rather
than having to wade through previous discussion. Possible to upload and
send
such a link?
(Or maybe that has already happened and I just can't find the link? In
which
case sorry for not finding it - please still send it to this list.)
On 17-May-17 20:33, Milos Rancic wrote:
We should start finishing this issue. May all of you check the
previous discussion and say if you agree in general with the proposal
amended by MF-Warburg? If so, I would make the next draft.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
>
> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com>
> wrote:
>>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn out
>> to
>> be
>> contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as
>> eligible
>> without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So
>> if
>> we
>> want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as well?
>
> Agreed.
>
>>> 1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be
>>> approved without them.
>>
>> What does this mean exactly?
>
> Yes, it could be described more in detail. I thought that we can't
> vote about approving a new Wikipedia if they didn't translate 500
> MediaWiki messages and similar. I was too lazy to take a look into the
> exact conditions for approval. In other words, we could discuss about
> the activity, but we can't discuss to approve the project if it's not
> written in particular language. And similar.
>
>> Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient
>> Greek.
>> Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding
>> constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than
>> the
>> possibility to allow everything by a majority vote.
>
> Yes. But it would anyway require majority vote. What's the difference
> between Ancient Greek and Sumerian? Would we allow Wikipedia in
> Sumerian? Classical Hebrew? ...
>
>>> 2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but
>>> valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
>>
>> I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47
>> codes.
>> Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
>
> In general, we should discuss and (hopefully) approve usage BCP 47
> formally, as well. However, it is so wide territory, that it's hard to
> make a consistent rule about it: Why should we approve qu-ec and why
> we shouldn't approve en-au? Why it's better to use mn-mong for
> Mongolian instead of mvf? ...
>
>> The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a 2/3
>> majority to introduce a new member anyway.
>
> Yes. But that would mean that there is something really bad going on
> here.
>
>> Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved
>> unless
>> a
>> member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not
>> exactly
>> rejected, n'est-ce pas?).
>> At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however that
>> in
>> general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I
>> have
>> been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the
>> “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always was:
>> not
>> really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a
>> theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason. But
>> apart
>> from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will
>> help
>> much.
>
> Time and efforts required for arguing with only one person and having
> in mind that it's useless makes LangCom dysfunctional. Besides that,
> in few years we could have even 100 requests for eligibility per year.
> It's likely that 60-70 would be valid, but it's also likely that we
> would have to spend extraordinary time on discussion about 10-20 of
> them. Even if it's once per month, it would be stressful enough and
> lead us into the new period of hibernation.
>
> Besides that, it's not about random persons here, but about people
> with enough professional and personal integrity. It is normal that we
> don't agree about everything and that we should accept if more members
> of LangCom decided to approve the project.
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
---
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.
http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org