2017-02-07 15:08 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson <everson(a)evertype.com>om>:
On 6 Feb 2017, at 21:45, Milos Rancic
<millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I am in favor of making LangCom a normal
democratic body: 50%+1 (of
those who voted) for regular decisions, 2/3 majority (of those who
voted) for changing the rules. ("Of those who voted" because we have u
number of inactive members.)
I would support this.
In general, I'm not a fan of voting about issues in Wikipedia. Democracy is
good for countries, but not necessarily for an encyclopedia. The English
Wikipedia has a pretty clear practice of not deciding about pretty much
anything by vote count. My home wiki the Hebrew Wikipedia is quite
different, and a lot of things are decided by a vote there; I consider it
wrong, and never participate in such votes.
For Langcom, a voting policy will possibly make sense for areas where there
is space for opinion, such as a prediction of a project's viability,
perceived incubator activity, new members, or whether to approve a
constructed language. These things are hard to measure precisely. Also, for
questions such as whether to approve a project with a macro-language code
or not. At the moment it's possible that one opposing committee member will
block progress without even having to explain their opinion, and this is
not great.
For more clear-cut questions such as whether to approve a project in a
language without an ISO code, there shouldn't be a vote—it should be an
immediate rejection.