I cannot agree to stopping the clock. By all means let this be motivation to clarify policy and procedures for conlangs going forward. (I have some thoughts on that to share later.)
But one of the reasons I took on the role of clerk is because so many requests (opening and closing) have been in stasis for months and years, sometimes notwithstanding policy. And I'm really trying to keep things moving consistent with the current rules. So since this project passed according to the current rules, we need to accept that in this case and create the wiki.
Steven
Sent from my iPad
Hoi, Given that we have a problem in the basic functioning of the committee, we'd better find a working relation because that went to pot. You may have taken the role of clerk but without a modus vivendi things will bog down even more. We do not need to accept this case, we have to function and we clearly do not. Thanks, GerardM
On 10 December 2017 at 18:29, Steven White koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
I cannot agree to stopping the clock. By all means let this be motivation to clarify policy and procedures for conlangs going forward. (I have some thoughts on that to share later.)
But one of the reasons I took on the role of clerk is because so many requests (opening and closing) have been in stasis for months and years, sometimes notwithstanding policy. And I'm really trying to keep things moving consistent with the current rules. So since this project passed according to the current rules, we need to accept that in this case and create the wiki.
Steven
Sent from my iPad _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
2017-12-10 9:49 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Given the current situation, it makes sense to reflect. It is also what you ask. If it helps the process I am in favour to stop the clock and come up with reasonable arguments. I am no longer in favour if that helps to make us reflect on business. Business as usual is not an option.
2017-12-10 19:10 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Given that we have a problem in the basic functioning of the committee,
we'd better find a working relation because that went to pot. You may have taken the role of clerk but without a modus vivendi things will bog down even more. We do not need to accept this case, we have to function and we clearly do not.
What I would like is a discussion about criteria for constructed languages. As I said, I favour having them over case-by-case decisions which will inevitably lead to inconsistencies and perceived unfairness. But, if everyone or most members support Wikipedia in Lingua Franca Nova, I suppose such criteria would say yes to LFN. That's why I don't intend to stop its creation. It's not really business as usual either because so far we didn't approve any artificial language projects. And so far there was unanimity, so let's not sacrifice it to other discussions. Let's discuss separate topics separately: on one hand, the "working relationship" of the Langcom; on the other, the criteria for constructed languages; on a third (wow) LFN.
2017-12-10 18:29 GMT+01:00 Steven White koala19890@hotmail.com:
But one of the reasons I took on the role of clerk is because so many
requests (opening and closing) have been in stasis for months and years, sometimes notwithstanding policy.
This request is being actively discussed (in this thread). It's not like I suggested to shut it down. Nor did Gerard. Requests open for years exist because there is no discussion about them.