2017-12-10 9:49 GMT+01:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)hotmail.com>om>:
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.