Look, I'm not trying to make trouble, nor to ramrod my opinions. With thanks to members who supported my approach, I am going to revert the closure of the discussion.

Before I do that, I will just point out that I think I have followed the rules up to this point. Gerard's willingness to agree to the closure happened in March, while we were still in a discussion phase. He did not comment afterwards, so I wouldn't have characterized what he did as negating my proposal. I do think it is within my purview as clerk to put a proposal on the table. If I stretched a point of the rules at all, it was to hypothesize that a "discussion" during which only one member comments is not sufficient to establish a committee consensus to close an existing project, particularly when its only real problem is inactivity. But maybe that's not correct; that needs to be discussed.

I would also point out to Marco that per policy, the community's role in such matters is advisory, not binding. Whether or not it should apply to this particular case, the Board and LangCom have expressed a general point of view that they would rather keep projects open than to close them, provided that the project is not full of vandalism. So while the community does seem to support the closure, LangCom need not follow the community's advice, although it certainly may do so.

Closing projects policyhttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy normally does not involve an actual vote; it is supposed to close on consensus. Again, my perspective is that a consensus discussion to close a project that is not vandalized requires more than one voice. If members disagree, then please say so. (And I'd point out that frequently we allow a single voice to mark a project request as "eligible" or "rejected"; I just think existing projects deserve a little stronger benefit of the doubt.) So let's let this run for at least another week, to April 17, and see what else people have to say about it.

Steven

Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook