Gerard wrote:
<start> Hoi, Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to expect a result. Thanks, GerardM <end>
For the current instance, based on where we are now, Amir's estimation is fine. As long as someone is actually trying to follow up on these projects, and gives a reasonable estimate as to how long it will take, I'm fine.
James's question, and mine, is more around the big picture. Please remember that three of the four projects we are talking about here (Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Tacawit Wiktionary) were identified in an email I wrote on 17 December 2018 (about eight months ago) as already being provisionally approved and awaiting language verification. The fourth (Mon WP) is perhaps a month newer. But 7-8 months and longer—Saraiki WP was provisionally approved in October 2018—is absolutely not reasonable by any standard. Quite frankly, I was desperate to do something to move these along, because being nice and playing by the rules was doing absolutely nothing. (Remember, too, that I wrote pleasant, polite reminders to the committee about these four projects on March 14 and June 6.) I'm sorry, Gerard, that you didn't like me doing what I did. But what I did is far less objectionable than requiring communities to wait this long for us to complete language verification.
To that end, I am proposing the following amendment to the provision about language verification. I am open to some adjustments, but allowing projects to sit this long and wait for us is just not acceptable. Where this amendment is to be added is in the Language Committee's Handbook, Final Approvalhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval, item #2. Subitem #3 is to be followed by new subitem #4:
4. The Language Committee has 30 days from the time a project is provisionally approved—meaning: approved, except for language verification—to identify and contact an expert for the language verification. If no expert is contacted within 30 days, then on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. If an expert is contacted within 30 days, the Language Committee has an additional 60 days to obtain the final language verification. If no language verification (or failure of language verification) is received by then, on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. Overall, any project for which the Language Committee has failed to get language verification (or failure of language verification) within 90 days will be approved on the assumption of good faith.
I think this gives us plenty of time to do what we need to do, without requiring communities to wait on us for months without comment. This would apply for all projects receiving provisional approval from this point on. But in parallel, given that Amir started working on these four projects around August 15, I would also propose that if we have not finalized language verification by October 15, these four projects also be finally approved.
Steven
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
Thank you for this, Steven, and thanks for all the great work you have done for us so far. I agree that this is a sensible change – we should be ashamed that it has taken us this long to get moving on these languages, and we need to do better.
One thing that I believe we have been reluctant to in the past is accepting experts referred by the communities themselves. However, I feel like that would be something that could be changed as long as we are able to independently verify such experts' credentials. Don't know how/if that could be worked into the LPP somehow?
tir. 20. aug. 2019 kl. 19:31 skrev Steven White koala19890@hotmail.com:
Gerard wrote:
<start> Hoi, Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to expect a result. Thanks, GerardM <end>
For the current instance, based on where we are now, Amir's estimation is fine. As long as someone is actually trying to follow up on these projects, and gives a reasonable estimate as to how long it will take, I'm fine.
James's question, and mine, is more around the big picture. Please remember that three of the four projects we are talking about here (Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Tacawit Wiktionary) were identified in an email I wrote on 17 December 2018 (about eight months ago) as already being provisionally approved and awaiting language verification. The fourth (Mon WP) is perhaps a month newer. But 7-8 months and longer—Saraiki WP was provisionally approved in October 2018—is absolutely not reasonable by any standard. Quite frankly, I was desperate to do something to move these along, because being nice and playing by the rules was doing absolutely nothing. (Remember, too, that I wrote pleasant, polite reminders to the committee about these four projects on March 14 and June 6.) I'm sorry, Gerard, that you didn't like me doing what I did. But what I did is far less objectionable than requiring communities to wait this long for us to complete language verification.
To that end, I am proposing the following amendment to the provision about language verification. I am open to some adjustments, but allowing projects to sit this long and wait *for us* is just not acceptable. Where this amendment is to be added is in the Language Committee's Handbook, Final Approval https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval, item #2. Subitem #3 is to be followed by new subitem #4:
- The Language Committee has 30 days from the time a project is
provisionally approved—meaning: approved, except for language verification—to identify and contact an expert for the language verification. If no expert is contacted within 30 days, then on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. If an expert is contacted within 30 days, the Language Committee has an additional 60 days to obtain the final language verification. If no language verification (or failure of language verification) is received by then, on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. Overall, any project for which the Language Committee has failed to get language verification (or failure of language verification) within 90 days will be approved on the assumption of good faith.
I think this gives us plenty of time to do what we need to do, without requiring communities to wait on us for months without comment. This would apply for all projects receiving provisional approval from this point on. But in parallel, given that Amir started working on these four projects around August 15, I would also propose that if we have not finalized language verification by October 15, these four projects also be finally approved.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, I am happy to be more relaxed on experts. When they are published scientists we can ask for an ORCID, VIAF of Google Scholar identifier to learn more about the scientist involved. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 21:51, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
Thank you for this, Steven, and thanks for all the great work you have done for us so far. I agree that this is a sensible change – we should be ashamed that it has taken us this long to get moving on these languages, and we need to do better.
One thing that I believe we have been reluctant to in the past is accepting experts referred by the communities themselves. However, I feel like that would be something that could be changed as long as we are able to independently verify such experts' credentials. Don't know how/if that could be worked into the LPP somehow?
tir. 20. aug. 2019 kl. 19:31 skrev Steven White koala19890@hotmail.com:
Gerard wrote:
<start> Hoi, Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to expect a result. Thanks, GerardM <end>
For the current instance, based on where we are now, Amir's estimation is fine. As long as someone is actually trying to follow up on these projects, and gives a reasonable estimate as to how long it will take, I'm fine.
James's question, and mine, is more around the big picture. Please remember that three of the four projects we are talking about here (Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Tacawit Wiktionary) were identified in an email I wrote on 17 December 2018 (about eight months ago) as already being provisionally approved and awaiting language verification. The fourth (Mon WP) is perhaps a month newer. But 7-8 months and longer—Saraiki WP was provisionally approved in October 2018—is absolutely not reasonable by any standard. Quite frankly, I was desperate to do something to move these along, because being nice and playing by the rules was doing absolutely nothing. (Remember, too, that I wrote pleasant, polite reminders to the committee about these four projects on March 14 and June 6.) I'm sorry, Gerard, that you didn't like me doing what I did. But what I did is far less objectionable than requiring communities to wait this long for us to complete language verification.
To that end, I am proposing the following amendment to the provision about language verification. I am open to some adjustments, but allowing projects to sit this long and wait *for us* is just not acceptable. Where this amendment is to be added is in the Language Committee's Handbook, Final Approval https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval, item #2. Subitem #3 is to be followed by new subitem #4:
- The Language Committee has 30 days from the time a project is
provisionally approved—meaning: approved, except for language verification—to identify and contact an expert for the language verification. If no expert is contacted within 30 days, then on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. If an expert is contacted within 30 days, the Language Committee has an additional 60 days to obtain the final language verification. If no language verification (or failure of language verification) is received by then, on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. Overall, any project for which the Language Committee has failed to get language verification (or failure of language verification) within 90 days will be approved on the assumption of good faith.
I think this gives us plenty of time to do what we need to do, without requiring communities to wait on us for months without comment. This would apply for all projects receiving provisional approval from this point on. But in parallel, given that Amir started working on these four projects around August 15, I would also propose that if we have not finalized language verification by October 15, these four projects also be finally approved.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
-- mvh Jon Harald Søby _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, No. When you consider our context, this is not something to overregulate with constraints like time limits. This is not for us to be a shamed in a position whereby we lose track of what the language committee is there for. Preventing from shit happening.
The situation where we are in is one where a project that has been approved is not created. Where essential maintenance on language related technology is not happening or only happening when it is done in volunteer time. I like to remind you that the original idea was to have two phases to the approval; one whereby we consider the technical issues of a language first and after this first approval it is a matter of gaining sufficient weight to the to be approved project to be approved. The nod of a specialist is to prevent the highjacking of the project by people who have an agenda for that language.
Finding a specialist is something that can happen from the first approval moving forward.
Now ask yourself, why does the Hindi Wikisource not exist. What we do is pissing in the wind, it makes no difference in the big picture. This notion of 30 days will not make one iota of difference in the actual realisation of a project. There are all kinds of other impediments for the support of languages so this whole situation is trivial in the big picture. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, 20 Aug 2019 at 19:31, Steven White koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Gerard wrote:
<start> Hoi, Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to expect a result. Thanks, GerardM <end>
For the current instance, based on where we are now, Amir's estimation is fine. As long as someone is actually trying to follow up on these projects, and gives a reasonable estimate as to how long it will take, I'm fine.
James's question, and mine, is more around the big picture. Please remember that three of the four projects we are talking about here (Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Tacawit Wiktionary) were identified in an email I wrote on 17 December 2018 (about eight months ago) as already being provisionally approved and awaiting language verification. The fourth (Mon WP) is perhaps a month newer. But 7-8 months and longer—Saraiki WP was provisionally approved in October 2018—is absolutely not reasonable by any standard. Quite frankly, I was desperate to do something to move these along, because being nice and playing by the rules was doing absolutely nothing. (Remember, too, that I wrote pleasant, polite reminders to the committee about these four projects on March 14 and June 6.) I'm sorry, Gerard, that you didn't like me doing what I did. But what I did is far less objectionable than requiring communities to wait this long for us to complete language verification.
To that end, I am proposing the following amendment to the provision about language verification. I am open to some adjustments, but allowing projects to sit this long and wait *for us* is just not acceptable. Where this amendment is to be added is in the Language Committee's Handbook, Final Approval https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval, item #2. Subitem #3 is to be followed by new subitem #4:
- The Language Committee has 30 days from the time a project is
provisionally approved—meaning: approved, except for language verification—to identify and contact an expert for the language verification. If no expert is contacted within 30 days, then on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. If an expert is contacted within 30 days, the Language Committee has an additional 60 days to obtain the final language verification. If no language verification (or failure of language verification) is received by then, on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. Overall, any project for which the Language Committee has failed to get language verification (or failure of language verification) within 90 days will be approved on the assumption of good faith.
I think this gives us plenty of time to do what we need to do, without requiring communities to wait on us for months without comment. This would apply for all projects receiving provisional approval from this point on. But in parallel, given that Amir started working on these four projects around August 15, I would also propose that if we have not finalized language verification by October 15, these four projects also be finally approved.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Sorry, no.
No verification at all and simply assuming good faith after some arbitrary time is asking for trouble. There already were cases of hoaxes in the past. Not many cases, but they did happen, and we're talking about a whole site, even one case is major trouble.
HOWEVER, I absolutely do recognize that we have unnecessary and harmful bottlenecks in the approval process, and because of that I'm working on another proposal that will ease up at least some of these bottlenecks.
I've just came back from Wikimania, and I'm immediately going for a vacation until the end of August, but after that—expect surprises, hopefully good ones.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
בתאריך יום ג׳, 20 באוג׳ 2019 ב-20:31 מאת Steven White < koala19890@hotmail.com>:
Gerard wrote:
<start> Hoi, Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to expect a result. Thanks, GerardM <end>
For the current instance, based on where we are now, Amir's estimation is fine. As long as someone is actually trying to follow up on these projects, and gives a reasonable estimate as to how long it will take, I'm fine.
James's question, and mine, is more around the big picture. Please remember that three of the four projects we are talking about here (Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Tacawit Wiktionary) were identified in an email I wrote on 17 December 2018 (about eight months ago) as already being provisionally approved and awaiting language verification. The fourth (Mon WP) is perhaps a month newer. But 7-8 months and longer—Saraiki WP was provisionally approved in October 2018—is absolutely not reasonable by any standard. Quite frankly, I was desperate to do something to move these along, because being nice and playing by the rules was doing absolutely nothing. (Remember, too, that I wrote pleasant, polite reminders to the committee about these four projects on March 14 and June 6.) I'm sorry, Gerard, that you didn't like me doing what I did. But what I did is far less objectionable than requiring communities to wait this long for us to complete language verification.
To that end, I am proposing the following amendment to the provision about language verification. I am open to some adjustments, but allowing projects to sit this long and wait *for us* is just not acceptable. Where this amendment is to be added is in the Language Committee's Handbook, Final Approval https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval, item #2. Subitem #3 is to be followed by new subitem #4:
- The Language Committee has 30 days from the time a project is
provisionally approved—meaning: approved, except for language verification—to identify and contact an expert for the language verification. If no expert is contacted within 30 days, then on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. If an expert is contacted within 30 days, the Language Committee has an additional 60 days to obtain the final language verification. If no language verification (or failure of language verification) is received by then, on the assumption of good faith, the project will be finally approved. Overall, any project for which the Language Committee has failed to get language verification (or failure of language verification) within 90 days will be approved on the assumption of good faith.
I think this gives us plenty of time to do what we need to do, without requiring communities to wait on us for months without comment. This would apply for all projects receiving provisional approval from this point on. But in parallel, given that Amir started working on these four projects around August 15, I would also propose that if we have not finalized language verification by October 15, these four projects also be finally approved.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom