Dear Gerard,
I am sorry you feel your time is being wasted. I am also very surprised how much effort
this is taking, especially given that the request for policy change in the RFC is very
limited, and would help the Committee deal with issues around the ancient language wikis
which are not performing well. Furthermore I have no wish to be a nuisance, rather I would
like to work with the Committee to help improve the ability of Ancient Language Wikis
(ALWs) to meet WM’s mission.
As you say, the policy is clear; the process is now clearer, having found the email
archive. This is important, because some members of the Committee want to leave the
current policy in place, should the current RFC be rejected.
However, that is only reasonable if the policy you have can be seen to be developed fairly
and responsibly, and to have dealt with all of the issues properly, at the time. Looking
at the email discussion that led to the change I would observe that:
The change to the status of Ancient Languages was presented as a minor change to the
Language proposal policy
The discussion was very short, with just 16 emails sent
Only three issues were raised; being the need to meet the mission; a "need for native
speakers"; and the need for a “natural audience”
There were no mitigations or alternatives discussed
There was no mention of a public discussion or consultation, which appears to be a breach
of the Committee’s Charter commitment to transparency
There was no discussion of whether qualitative factors (ancient versus constructed
languages) could be appropriately combined with different treatment of objective factors
(numbers of native speakers) which appears to be in breach of the Committee’s Charter,
which commits to using objective factors alone.
Point six in particular is in need of public consultation and a consensus, and should not
be the property of the Committee to determine by itself, or via a Board rubber stamp.
All this said, it is easy to say these things in hindsight. I just want to be plain that
the current RFC process is already a much more thorough and developed policy process than
that in 2007 - quite naturally, given we have 14 years of further experience to apply. A
review would be quite natural after this length of time in any case.
So this is not meant as criticism, still less a personal one. I would however like the
Committee to approach the current RFC positively, and use it to take a fresh look.
Thank you again for your time,
Jim