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: 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom

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 &lt;koala19890(a)hotmail.com&gt;om>: -- mvh Jon Harald Søby _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom