In principle, I agree with Satdeep. But that said, there happens to be a technical logjam in creating any new wikis right now. See phabricator T212881https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T212881. So approving this project now, vs. approving it in ten days (once we're up to five qualifying months), will make no difference as a practical matter. If MF-Warburg does not agree once March has at least three editors with ten edits each, I will formally call a vote.
Steven
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
I look forward to the first-ever vote to be held in Langcom. However, I would like to explain my point again: Setting up wikis is a very cumbersome procedure (as we also see with the current bug), but closing wikis is an even more cumbersome procedure, therefore I always want to be very sure that the activity is sustainable enough for a longer period than three months, since I would be very sad to see any wiki being closed again as per "Note that a project may be closed if there is little or no activity after it is created" only very shortly after its creation. That would be fun for nobody. So, while "three months" is always mentioned, it is what I consider truly an absolute minimum, not a trigger which says "now it's high time"... In fact, the Language Proposal Policy does not mention "three months" at all, for good reasons.
Am Fr., 22. Feb. 2019 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Steven White < koala19890@hotmail.com>:
In principle, I agree with Satdeep. But that said, there happens to be a technical logjam in creating any new wikis right now. See phabricator T212881 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T212881. So approving this project now, vs. approving it in ten days (once we're up to five qualifying months), will make no difference as a practical matter. If MF-Warburg does not agree once March has at least three editors with ten edits each, I will formally call a vote.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
It is a sad day that we are to vote.
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 00:49, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
I look forward to the first-ever vote to be held in Langcom. However, I would like to explain my point again: Setting up wikis is a very cumbersome procedure (as we also see with the current bug), but closing wikis is an even more cumbersome procedure, therefore I always want to be very sure that the activity is sustainable enough for a longer period than three months, since I would be very sad to see any wiki being closed again as per "Note that a project may be closed if there is little or no activity after it is created" only very shortly after its creation. That would be fun for nobody. So, while "three months" is always mentioned, it is what I consider truly an absolute minimum, not a trigger which says "now it's high time"... In fact, the Language Proposal Policy does not mention "three months" at all, for good reasons.
Am Fr., 22. Feb. 2019 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Steven White < koala19890@hotmail.com>:
In principle, I agree with Satdeep. But that said, there happens to be a technical logjam in creating any new wikis right now. See phabricator T212881 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T212881. So approving this project now, vs. approving it in ten days (once we're up to five qualifying months), will make no difference as a practical matter. If MF-Warburg does not agree once March has at least three editors with ten edits each, I will formally call a vote.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
“It is sad that not everyone agrees with me“ ?
Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com schrieb am Do., 28. Feb. 2019, 06:51:
It is a sad day that we are to vote.
On Thu, 28 Feb 2019 at 00:49, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
I look forward to the first-ever vote to be held in Langcom. However, I would like to explain my point again: Setting up wikis is a very cumbersome procedure (as we also see with the current bug), but closing wikis is an even more cumbersome procedure, therefore I always want to be very sure that the activity is sustainable enough for a longer period than three months, since I would be very sad to see any wiki being closed again as per "Note that a project may be closed if there is little or no activity after it is created" only very shortly after its creation. That would be fun for nobody. So, while "three months" is always mentioned, it is what I consider truly an absolute minimum, not a trigger which says "now it's high time"... In fact, the Language Proposal Policy does not mention "three months" at all, for good reasons.
Am Fr., 22. Feb. 2019 um 15:10 Uhr schrieb Steven White < koala19890@hotmail.com>:
In principle, I agree with Satdeep. But that said, there happens to be a technical logjam in creating any new wikis right now. See phabricator T212881 https://phabricator.wikimedia.org/T212881. So approving this project now, vs. approving it in ten days (once we're up to five qualifying months), will make no difference as a practical matter. If MF-Warburg does not agree once March has at least three editors with ten edits each, I will formally call a vote.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom