One issue: membership.
== Membership ==
* Accepting any new member would still require consensus of those who expressed their opinion. (Nothing has changed.)
* LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy change!)
* At this moment of time we have 17 members. One of them has very specific role (Zadiak, Wikiversity). I don't remember if I heard at all three of them. Five of them are quite quiet during the last few years.
While it's good to create a general limit of 10-15 members, I think it is not useful at the moment, as we don't have all necessary expertise inside of the committee. However, on the long run, we could limit accepting new members from already covered areas.
In relation to Wikimedia and computers in general we are pretty strong and I see no reason to increase the number of LangCom members based on those types of expertise.
However, we lack in expertise and connections related to, most importantly, South (and Central) America and Southeast Asia (including Austronesian languages). It would be good to have somebody for the languages of New Guinea (~1500 of them).
I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be welcome, as well.
My proposal (so, please, comment this paragraph if you don't agree or you want to make addition or change!) is to publish on wikimedia-l that we are searching for three member profiles, which should be, ideally, similar to Oliver: (1) A Wikimedian and expert in South and Central American indigenous languages; (2) A Wikimedian and expert in Southeast Asian (including Austronesian) languages; (3) A Wikimedian and expert in New Guinea languages.
That would raise the number of LangCom members to 20 and from this point of time, we should wait to lose at least 7-8 members before adding any new.
Hoi, When we push people out that are not active and replace them with people who add value, I am happy to see this happen. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
One issue: membership.
== Membership ==
- Accepting any new member would still require consensus of those who
expressed their opinion. (Nothing has changed.)
- LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least
twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy change!)
- At this moment of time we have 17 members. One of them has very
specific role (Zadiak, Wikiversity). I don't remember if I heard at all three of them. Five of them are quite quiet during the last few years.
While it's good to create a general limit of 10-15 members, I think it is not useful at the moment, as we don't have all necessary expertise inside of the committee. However, on the long run, we could limit accepting new members from already covered areas.
In relation to Wikimedia and computers in general we are pretty strong and I see no reason to increase the number of LangCom members based on those types of expertise.
However, we lack in expertise and connections related to, most importantly, South (and Central) America and Southeast Asia (including Austronesian languages). It would be good to have somebody for the languages of New Guinea (~1500 of them).
I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be welcome, as well.
My proposal (so, please, comment this paragraph if you don't agree or you want to make addition or change!) is to publish on wikimedia-l that we are searching for three member profiles, which should be, ideally, similar to Oliver: (1) A Wikimedian and expert in South and Central American indigenous languages; (2) A Wikimedian and expert in Southeast Asian (including Austronesian) languages; (3) A Wikimedian and expert in New Guinea languages.
That would raise the number of LangCom members to 20 and from this point of time, we should wait to lose at least 7-8 members before adding any new.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hi Milos, Gerard,
Greetings! I follow the LangCom discussions regularly and appreciate having access to observe.
Thank you for having me still being an observer. Let me know if you'd like to see observers such as myself being more active in feedback! Cheers!
Best, Alolita
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When we push people out that are not active and replace them with people who add value, I am happy to see this happen. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
One issue: membership.
== Membership ==
- Accepting any new member would still require consensus of those who
expressed their opinion. (Nothing has changed.)
- LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least
twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy change!)
- At this moment of time we have 17 members. One of them has very
specific role (Zadiak, Wikiversity). I don't remember if I heard at all three of them. Five of them are quite quiet during the last few years.
While it's good to create a general limit of 10-15 members, I think it is not useful at the moment, as we don't have all necessary expertise inside of the committee. However, on the long run, we could limit accepting new members from already covered areas.
In relation to Wikimedia and computers in general we are pretty strong and I see no reason to increase the number of LangCom members based on those types of expertise.
However, we lack in expertise and connections related to, most importantly, South (and Central) America and Southeast Asia (including Austronesian languages). It would be good to have somebody for the languages of New Guinea (~1500 of them).
I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be welcome, as well.
My proposal (so, please, comment this paragraph if you don't agree or you want to make addition or change!) is to publish on wikimedia-l that we are searching for three member profiles, which should be, ideally, similar to Oliver: (1) A Wikimedian and expert in South and Central American indigenous languages; (2) A Wikimedian and expert in Southeast Asian (including Austronesian) languages; (3) A Wikimedian and expert in New Guinea languages.
That would raise the number of LangCom members to 20 and from this point of time, we should wait to lose at least 7-8 members before adding any new.
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
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 8:58 PM, Alolita Sharma alolita.sharma@gmail.com wrote:
Greetings! I follow the LangCom discussions regularly and appreciate having access to observe.
Thank you for having me still being an observer. Let me know if you'd like to see observers such as myself being more active in feedback! Cheers!
Hey, Alolita (and other observers), we are talking about full members, not observers. I see no problem in having a lot of constructive or quiet observers :)
Hoi, When there is something to be said, it is very welcome. In my opinion carefully crafted arguments are what makes our process more inclusive. When a strong negative opinion is voiced, well argued obviously, it helps as much as a strong positive opinion does.
Who votes is very much part and parcel of our history but the language committee has always been more about arguments than about rules and policies. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 20:58, Alolita Sharma alolita.sharma@gmail.com wrote:
Hi Milos, Gerard,
Greetings! I follow the LangCom discussions regularly and appreciate having access to observe.
Thank you for having me still being an observer. Let me know if you'd like to see observers such as myself being more active in feedback! Cheers!
Best, Alolita
On Thu, Feb 9, 2017 at 10:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi, When we push people out that are not active and replace them with people who add value, I am happy to see this happen. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
One issue: membership.
== Membership ==
- Accepting any new member would still require consensus of those who
expressed their opinion. (Nothing has changed.)
- LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least
twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy change!)
- At this moment of time we have 17 members. One of them has very
specific role (Zadiak, Wikiversity). I don't remember if I heard at all three of them. Five of them are quite quiet during the last few years.
While it's good to create a general limit of 10-15 members, I think it is not useful at the moment, as we don't have all necessary expertise inside of the committee. However, on the long run, we could limit accepting new members from already covered areas.
In relation to Wikimedia and computers in general we are pretty strong and I see no reason to increase the number of LangCom members based on those types of expertise.
However, we lack in expertise and connections related to, most importantly, South (and Central) America and Southeast Asia (including Austronesian languages). It would be good to have somebody for the languages of New Guinea (~1500 of them).
I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be welcome, as well.
My proposal (so, please, comment this paragraph if you don't agree or you want to make addition or change!) is to publish on wikimedia-l that we are searching for three member profiles, which should be, ideally, similar to Oliver: (1) A Wikimedian and expert in South and Central American indigenous languages; (2) A Wikimedian and expert in Southeast Asian (including Austronesian) languages; (3) A Wikimedian and expert in New Guinea languages.
That would raise the number of LangCom members to 20 and from this point of time, we should wait to lose at least 7-8 members before adding any new.
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
2017-02-09 17:00 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
One issue: membership.
== Membership ==
- Accepting any new member would still require consensus of those who
expressed their opinion. (Nothing has changed.)
- LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least
twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy change!)
This makes sense, no objections. I must say, there are many times I could've replied with just a +1, but didn't because I didn't have anything more to contribute to a conversation, but I realize even an "I agree" adds some value in this list, since it shows that what's being written is read and understood. I'll keep that in mind forward.
- At this moment of time we have 17 members. One of them has very
specific role (Zadiak, Wikiversity). I don't remember if I heard at all three of them. Five of them are quite quiet during the last few years.
There are some members I think we could safely remove already, I'll list them and why in the bottom of this email.
While it's good to create a general limit of 10-15 members, I think it is not useful at the moment, as we don't have all necessary expertise inside of the committee. However, on the long run, we could limit accepting new members from already covered areas.
+1 :-)
In relation to Wikimedia and computers in general we are pretty strong and I see no reason to increase the number of LangCom members based on those types of expertise.
However, we lack in expertise and connections related to, most importantly, South (and Central) America and Southeast Asia (including Austronesian languages). It would be good to have somebody for the languages of New Guinea (~1500 of them).
This might be nitpicking, but I don't necessarily agree that we should be looking for New Guinea language specialists. Yes, I'm aware that there are 1500 languages (¼ of the world's languages by some estimates) spoken in New Guinea, but I don't think it makes sense for us to be giving too much weight to that at this point. The vast majority of these languages are spoken by small tribes who live in the middle of the forest, often lack access to basic amenities, let alone the Internet, and whose languages have never been written before. (I'm generalizing broadly now, and am no expert in Papuan languages, so please correct me if I'm mistaken!) This is not to say I wouldn't welcome any Papuan language specialists, I just think it doesn't make sense to make that a priority for an Internet-based movement like ours. But anyways, this is not very related to the point of this thread.
I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be welcome, as well.
Yes, please.
My proposal (so, please, comment this paragraph if you don't agree or you want to make addition or change!) is to publish on wikimedia-l that we are searching for three member profiles, which should be, ideally, similar to Oliver: (1) A Wikimedian and expert in South and Central American indigenous languages; (2) A Wikimedian and expert in Southeast Asian (including Austronesian) languages; (3) A Wikimedian and expert in New Guinea languages.
+1
That would raise the number of LangCom members to 20 and from this point of time, we should wait to lose at least 7-8 members before adding any new.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
List of LangCom members I think we should consider removing right away for prolonged inactivity: * Antony D. Green, last edit on Meta in 2013, last post to the mailing list in 2015 * Bèrto 'd Sèra, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing list in 2008 * Karen, no current account on Meta, last post to the mailing list in 2014 (before that one in 2013, then quite a bit of emails from 2007–2010) * Maria Fanucchi, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing list in 2008 * Shanel, last edit on Meta in 2014, last post to the mailing list in 2011
Just briefly on your list: Antony Green is an active member of LangCom; he just posted on the topics of Lingua Franca Nova and what's the smallest community some days ago (!), so please don't exclude him!
Best, Oliver
On 10-Feb-17 01:28, Jon Harald Søby wrote:
<snip>
List of LangCom members I think we should consider removing right away for prolonged inactivity:
- Antony D. Green, last edit on Meta in 2013, last post to the mailing
list in 2015
- Bèrto 'd Sèra, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing
list in 2008
- Karen, no current account on Meta, last post to the mailing list in
2014 (before that one in 2013, then quite a bit of emails from 2007–2010)
- Maria Fanucchi, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing
list in 2008
- Shanel, last edit on Meta in 2014, last post to the mailing list in 2011
-- mvh Jon Harald Søby
Oops, sorry about that! I searched for "Antony D. Green" in quotes, and since it gave some results I didn't think to search without the middle initial. Sorry again!
2017-02-10 10:40 GMT+01:00 Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org:
Just briefly on your list: Antony Green is an active member of LangCom; he just posted on the topics of Lingua Franca Nova and what's the smallest community some days ago (!), so please don't exclude him!
Best, Oliver
On 10-Feb-17 01:28, Jon Harald Søby wrote:
<snip>
List of LangCom members I think we should consider removing right away for prolonged inactivity:
- Antony D. Green, last edit on Meta in 2013, last post to the mailing
list in 2015
- Bèrto 'd Sèra, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing list
in 2008
- Karen, no current account on Meta, last post to the mailing list in 2014
(before that one in 2013, then quite a bit of emails from 2007–2010)
- Maria Fanucchi, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing list
in 2008
- Shanel, last edit on Meta in 2014, last post to the mailing list in 2011
-- mvh Jon Harald Søby
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
In response to the question of New Guinea languages: SIL is probably the one organisation [1] working in most of those languages, almost half of all in PNG alone, which includes over 2,500 publications and a large body of unpublished works about and in 389 languages [2]. Access to amenities including the internet is spreading fast [3], and mobile penetration is at 50% [4]. So, I am actually rather optimistic, not least as I'm aware of minority language activities in PNG being vital and continuing to go strong. Whether that means we need an additional New Guinea language expert, or whether it will be sufficient to rely on my SIL contacts (which do include PNG), that's another question which I refrain from answering here now as I may be perceived as biased on that issue. But Jon Harald asked for correction if necessary, and I at least felt the need to balance his outlook. I very much support the promotion of Internet-based movements in PNG, and I believe it makes a lot of sense.
[1] http://www.silpng.org/ [2] http://www-01.sil.org/pacific/png/show_lang.asp?by=langcode [3] http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/news/papua-new-guinea%E2%80%99s-internet-... [4] https://www.budde.com.au/Research/Papua-New-Guinea-Telecoms-Mobile-and-Broad...
On 10-Feb-17 01:28, Jon Harald Søby wrote:
[...] This might be nitpicking, but I don't necessarily agree that we should be looking for New Guinea language specialists. Yes, I'm aware that there are 1500 languages (¼ of the world's languages by some estimates) spoken in New Guinea, but I don't think it makes sense for us to be giving too much weight to that at this point. The vast majority of these languages are spoken by small tribes who live in the middle of the forest, often lack access to basic amenities, let alone the Internet, and whose languages have never been written before. (I'm generalizing broadly now, and am no expert in Papuan languages, so please correct me if I'm mistaken!) This is not to say I wouldn't welcome any Papuan language specialists, I just think it doesn't make sense to make that a priority for an Internet-based movement like ours. But anyways, this is not very related to the point of this thread.
Alright, that's great to hear – I'm very happy to be proven wrong about my pessimism. :-) My point about most languages having a very small number of speakers I think still stands, *but* there are plenty of bigger languages as well where the number of speakers would be enough for wiki projects, so consider my objection nullified. :-)
2017-02-10 12:08 GMT+01:00 Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org:
In response to the question of New Guinea languages: SIL is probably the one organisation [1] working in most of those languages, almost half of all in PNG alone, which includes over 2,500 publications and a large body of unpublished works about and in 389 languages [2]. Access to amenities including the internet is spreading fast [3], and mobile penetration is at 50% [4]. So, I am actually rather optimistic, not least as I'm aware of minority language activities in PNG being vital and continuing to go strong. Whether that means we need an additional New Guinea language expert, or whether it will be sufficient to rely on my SIL contacts (which do include PNG), that's another question which I refrain from answering here now as I may be perceived as biased on that issue. But Jon Harald asked for correction if necessary, and I at least felt the need to balance his outlook. I very much support the promotion of Internet-based movements in PNG, and I believe it makes a lot of sense.
[1] http://www.silpng.org/ [2] http://www-01.sil.org/pacific/png/show_lang.asp?by=langcode [3] http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/news/papua-new-guinea%E2%80%99s- internet-gaining-speed [4] https://www.budde.com.au/Research/Papua-New-Guinea- Telecoms-Mobile-and-Broadband-Statistics-and-Analyses
On 10-Feb-17 01:28, Jon Harald Søby wrote:
[...] This might be nitpicking, but I don't necessarily agree that we should be looking for New Guinea language specialists. Yes, I'm aware that there are 1500 languages (¼ of the world's languages by some estimates) spoken in New Guinea, but I don't think it makes sense for us to be giving too much weight to that at this point. The vast majority of these languages are spoken by small tribes who live in the middle of the forest, often lack access to basic amenities, let alone the Internet, and whose languages have never been written before. (I'm generalizing broadly now, and am no expert in Papuan languages, so please correct me if I'm mistaken!) This is not to say I wouldn't welcome any Papuan language specialists, I just think it doesn't make sense to make that a priority for an Internet-based movement like ours. But anyways, this is not very related to the point of this thread.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, We know you and respect you. When your connections help us gain access to PNG specialists it is EXACTLY the bias we are seeking by your being a member :) Thanks, GerardM
On 10 February 2017 at 12:08, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
In response to the question of New Guinea languages: SIL is probably the one organisation [1] working in most of those languages, almost half of all in PNG alone, which includes over 2,500 publications and a large body of unpublished works about and in 389 languages [2]. Access to amenities including the internet is spreading fast [3], and mobile penetration is at 50% [4]. So, I am actually rather optimistic, not least as I'm aware of minority language activities in PNG being vital and continuing to go strong. Whether that means we need an additional New Guinea language expert, or whether it will be sufficient to rely on my SIL contacts (which do include PNG), that's another question which I refrain from answering here now as I may be perceived as biased on that issue. But Jon Harald asked for correction if necessary, and I at least felt the need to balance his outlook. I very much support the promotion of Internet-based movements in PNG, and I believe it makes a lot of sense.
[1] http://www.silpng.org/ [2] http://www-01.sil.org/pacific/png/show_lang.asp?by=langcode [3] http://www.oxfordbusinessgroup.com/news/papua-new-guinea%E2%80%99s- internet-gaining-speed [4] https://www.budde.com.au/Research/Papua-New-Guinea- Telecoms-Mobile-and-Broadband-Statistics-and-Analyses
On 10-Feb-17 01:28, Jon Harald Søby wrote:
[...] This might be nitpicking, but I don't necessarily agree that we should be looking for New Guinea language specialists. Yes, I'm aware that there are 1500 languages (¼ of the world's languages by some estimates) spoken in New Guinea, but I don't think it makes sense for us to be giving too much weight to that at this point. The vast majority of these languages are spoken by small tribes who live in the middle of the forest, often lack access to basic amenities, let alone the Internet, and whose languages have never been written before. (I'm generalizing broadly now, and am no expert in Papuan languages, so please correct me if I'm mistaken!) This is not to say I wouldn't welcome any Papuan language specialists, I just think it doesn't make sense to make that a priority for an Internet-based movement like ours. But anyways, this is not very related to the point of this thread.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I hardly ever edit anything on Meta. Or know what part of Meta you’re talking about.
I wouldn’t remove any of these without writing and asking them. When Antony Green does comment it is almost always useful :-) I don’t know any of the others.
On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:28, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
List of LangCom members I think we should consider removing right away for prolonged inactivity:
- Antony D. Green, last edit on Meta in 2013, last post to the mailing list in 2015
- Bèrto 'd Sèra, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing list in 2008
- Karen, no current account on Meta, last post to the mailing list in 2014 (before that one in 2013, then quite a bit of emails from 2007–2010)
- Maria Fanucchi, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing list in 2008
- Shanel, last edit on Meta in 2014, last post to the mailing list in 2011
2017-02-10 15:52 GMT+01:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
I hardly ever edit anything on Meta. Or know what part of Meta you’re talking about.
Oh, I know, and that's not a requirement – I only checked to see if there were people with no activity on the mailing list *and* no activity on Meta. I just wanted to make a basic list of inactive members.
I wouldn’t remove any of these without writing and asking them. When Antony Green does comment it is almost always useful :-) I don’t know any of the others.
Indeed! And my apologies again to Antony for erroneously putting him on that list.
On 10 Feb 2017, at 00:28, Jon Harald Søby jhsoby@gmail.com wrote:
List of LangCom members I think we should consider removing right away
for prolonged inactivity:
- Antony D. Green, last edit on Meta in 2013, last post to the mailing
list in 2015
- Bèrto 'd Sèra, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing
list in 2008
- Karen, no current account on Meta, last post to the mailing list in
2014 (before that one in 2013, then quite a bit of emails from 2007–2010)
- Maria Fanucchi, last edit on Meta in 2008, last post to the mailing
list in 2008
- Shanel, last edit on Meta in 2014, last post to the mailing list in
2011
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Re-sent in the new thread.
On 9 Feb 2017, at 14:30, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
- Accepting any new member would still require consensus of those who
expressed their opinion. (Nothing has changed.)
OK
- LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least
twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy change!)
This is hard to do. There is a lot of discussion on this list and lots of it is not relevant to an actual vote. Subject lines don’t indicate where a vote actually is. Perhaps we could use wiki pages for actual voting? That would also track both voters and non-voters.
However, we lack in expertise and connections related to, most importantly, South (and Central) America and Southeast Asia (including Austronesian languages). It would be good to have somebody for the languages of New Guinea (~1500 of them).
How many of those have populations large enough to want or need an encyclopaedia? The Tok Pisin Wiki exists and Hiri Motu is in the incubator. Wikipedia says “Papua New Guinea has more languages than any other country, with over 820 indigenous languages, representing 12% of the world's total, but most have fewer than 1,000 speakers”; Enga might be a candidate.
I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be welcome, as well.
One problem is that little is known (in the Anglophonie anyway) about many of these languages. Many of the articles on African languages are very short and sketchy.
My proposal (so, please, comment this paragraph if you don't agree or you want to make addition or change!) is to publish on wikimedia-l that we are searching for three member profiles, which should be, ideally, similar to Oliver: (1) A Wikimedian and expert in South and Central American indigenous languages; (2) A Wikimedian and expert in Southeast Asian (including Austronesian) languages; (3) A Wikimedian and expert in New Guinea languages.
André Müller might be good for (2). I don’t know if he’s a Wikipedian. But areal experts like these may well be hard to find.
Michael _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 9 Feb 2017, at 14:30, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
- LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least
twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy change!)
This is hard to do. There is a lot of discussion on this list and lots of it is not relevant to an actual vote. Subject lines don’t indicate where a vote actually is. Perhaps we could use wiki pages for actual voting? That would also track both voters and non-voters.
I've read Oliver's proposal as "if you don't have something substantially to add, you could just put +1 while making projects eligible/approved". Participating in substantial discussions is of more value than putting just +1, so I don't think anybody would get a warning with substantial participation and not voting.
But, yes, your proposal to vote on wiki is a good idea. I will add it into the proposal.
How many of those have populations large enough to want or need an encyclopaedia? The Tok Pisin Wiki exists and Hiri Motu is in the incubator. Wikipedia says “Papua New Guinea has more languages than any other country, with over 820 indigenous languages, representing 12% of the world's total, but most have fewer than 1,000 speakers”; Enga might be a candidate.
I am sure that at least few dozens of those languages would be able to create a valid small encyclopedia if they get opportunity.
But, as I've already written, I agree that the languages of New Guinea should be covered by Oliver's "extended expertise" :)
I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be welcome, as well.
One problem is that little is known (in the Anglophonie anyway) about many of these languages. Many of the articles on African languages are very short and sketchy.
This was more about the fact that we are dominantly white men in middle ages and that we are making decisions that affect the whole world.
André Müller might be good for (2). I don’t know if he’s a Wikipedian. But areal experts like these may well be hard to find.
Agreed. I've suggested Andre as our new member, if possible.
Hoi, I am not happy to add the additionel level of a wiki. Thanks, GerardM
Op za 11 feb. 2017 om 05:54 schreef Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
On Fri, Feb 10, 2017 at 3:48 PM, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 9 Feb 2017, at 14:30, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
- LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least
twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy change!)
This is hard to do. There is a lot of discussion on this list and lots
of it is not relevant to an actual vote. Subject lines don’t indicate where a vote actually is. Perhaps we could use wiki pages for actual voting? That would also track both voters and non-voters.
I've read Oliver's proposal as "if you don't have something substantially to add, you could just put +1 while making projects eligible/approved". Participating in substantial discussions is of more value than putting just +1, so I don't think anybody would get a warning with substantial participation and not voting.
But, yes, your proposal to vote on wiki is a good idea. I will add it into the proposal.
How many of those have populations large enough to want or need an
encyclopaedia? The Tok Pisin Wiki exists and Hiri Motu is in the incubator. Wikipedia says “Papua New Guinea has more languages than any other country, with over 820 indigenous languages, representing 12% of the world's total, but most have fewer than 1,000 speakers”; Enga might be a candidate.
I am sure that at least few dozens of those languages would be able to create a valid small encyclopedia if they get opportunity.
But, as I've already written, I agree that the languages of New Guinea should be covered by Oliver's "extended expertise" :)
I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be welcome, as well.
One problem is that little is known (in the Anglophonie anyway) about
many of these languages. Many of the articles on African languages are very short and sketchy.
This was more about the fact that we are dominantly white men in middle ages and that we are making decisions that affect the whole world.
André Müller might be good for (2). I don’t know if he’s a Wikipedian.
But areal experts like these may well be hard to find.
Agreed. I've suggested Andre as our new member, if possible.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 11 Feb 2017, at 13:10, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I am not happy to add the additionel level of a wiki.
Then you can’t complain if members don’t vote, because there’s no mechanism to track ballots. (Indeed there are no ballots.)
Michael
André tells me it sounds interesting and would like a link to some place he might read more about LangCom. I don’t know where that might be.
On 11 Feb 2017, at 04:54, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
André Müller might be good for (2). I don’t know if he’s a Wikipedian. But areal experts like these may well be hard to find.
Agreed. I've suggested Andre as our new member, if possible.
André agrees it would be interesting to serve for SEA expertise. His e-mail is esperantist@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:N-true
On 11 Feb 2017, at 15:04, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
André tells me it sounds interesting and would like a link to some place he might read more about LangCom. I don’t know where that might be.
On 11 Feb 2017, at 04:54, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
André Müller might be good for (2). I don’t know if he’s a Wikipedian. But areal experts like these may well be hard to find.
Agreed. I've suggested Andre as our new member, if possible.
If he still needs a link, there would be https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee
Am 11.02.2017 4:10 nachm. schrieb "Michael Everson" everson@evertype.com:
André agrees it would be interesting to serve for SEA expertise. His e-mail is esperantist@gmail.com
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:N-true
On 11 Feb 2017, at 15:04, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
André tells me it sounds interesting and would like a link to some place
he might read more about LangCom. I don’t know where that might be.
On 11 Feb 2017, at 04:54, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
André Müller might be good for (2). I don’t know if he’s a Wikipedian.
But areal experts like these may well be hard to find.
Agreed. I've suggested Andre as our new member, if possible.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Am 09.02.2017 5:01 nachm. schrieb "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com:
One issue: membership.
== Membership ==
* Accepting any new member would still require consensus of those who expressed their opinion. (Nothing has changed.)
* LangCom members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least twice per week), and to contribute on such decisions, where appropriate, within the deadline, or otherwise presumably at least once per month (this could be a simple +1). Lapses in participation would result in a "warning" after three months, and revocation of membership after six. (Note: This is actual proposal for the policy change!)
Saying “members should read messages in a timely fashion (at least twice per week) [...] otherwise at least once per month“ is a reasonable thing but it should be separate from a removal policy, which ought to be formulated rather clearly. I was, for example, away for a week just now (and am drowning in langcom threads now :p), and I think nobody wants to remove me for that :p So just to have it clear that not all members need to be hyperresponsive all of the time.
I'd support a "warning" after three months of no participation, and revocation of membership after six; though I also wouldn't mind extending the time e.g. to 9 and 12. I guess that everyone will have something to say at least yearly, even if he is e.g. mostly a member because of some special matter.
* At this moment of time we have 17 members. One of them has very specific role (Zadiak, Wikiversity). I don't remember if I heard at all three of them. Five of them are quite quiet during the last few years.
While it's good to create a general limit of 10-15 members, I think it is not useful at the moment, as we don't have all necessary expertise inside of the committee. However, on the long run, we could limit accepting new members from already covered areas.
In relation to Wikimedia and computers in general we are pretty strong and I see no reason to increase the number of LangCom members based on those types of expertise.
However, we lack in expertise and connections related to, most importantly, South (and Central) America and Southeast Asia (including Austronesian languages). It would be good to have somebody for the languages of New Guinea (~1500 of them).
I would also like to see a little bit of ethnnolinguistic diversity inside of the committee. At the moment we are 16/17 native Indo-European speakers and just two members are not of European ancestry. In other words, I think another African member should be welcome, as well.
My proposal (so, please, comment this paragraph if you don't agree or you want to make addition or change!) is to publish on wikimedia-l that we are searching for three member profiles, which should be, ideally, similar to Oliver: (1) A Wikimedian and expert in South and Central American indigenous languages; (2) A Wikimedian and expert in Southeast Asian (including Austronesian) languages; (3) A Wikimedian and expert in New Guinea languages.
I'm inclined to agree, except maybe that I am, as others already said in the thread, a bit skeptical about the need for New Guinean expertise (not that I'd mind having it).
That would raise the number of LangCom members to 20 and from this point of time, we should wait to lose at least 7-8 members before adding any new.
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom