2017-02-07 15:08 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com>:

On 6 Feb 2017, at 21:45, Milos Rancic <millosh@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.