Hi. Please see this commenthttps://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_committee#Some_old_requests_that_don't_have_Incubator_tests_but_also_%E2%80%9Celigible%E2%80%9D on Meta.
Contributors pointed out three cases in which a request was marked "eligible" (usually long ago), but where a test project was never started. Question I have for you is: Should I leave them alone, or change them to "rejected as stale"?
I can go either way on this. If we were evaluating them now, we'd close them as stale. But my big concern in trying to process all of these requests is to try to clear the backlog of "discussion" and "on hold" requests, because those make us appear as if we're not doing anything. There are many old requests with the status of "eligible" because people work on them only sporadically. In a sense, these are no different.
I'd appreciate some opinions on this.
Steven
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
Hoi, As always, eligible means that when people put in the effort and it is proven to be that language it will be approved. Stale imho only means that a past attempt was not succesful so that we do not have to continually monitor it. Eligibility is not affected by staleness. Thanks, GerardM
On 19 June 2018 at 23:14, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Hi. Please see this comment https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_committee#Some_old_requests_that_don't_have_Incubator_tests_but_also_%E2%80%9Celigible%E2%80%9D on Meta.
Contributors pointed out three cases in which a request was marked "eligible" (usually long ago), but where a test project was never started. Question I have for you is: Should I leave them alone, or change them to "rejected as stale"?
I can go either way on this. If we were evaluating them now, we'd close them as stale. But my big concern in trying to process all of these requests is to try to clear the backlog of "discussion" and "on hold" requests, because those make us appear as if we're not doing anything. There are many old requests with the status of "eligible" because people work on them only sporadically. In a sense, these are no different.
I'd appreciate some opinions on this.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
As far as I understand, 'eligible' only means that the language in the proposal has an ISO 639-3 code. I agree with Gerard that eligibility is not affected by staleness. Theoretically, a proposal can remain open for as long as someone works on it sporadically (or if enough content has been created), even if it doesn't fulfill the other requirements to go live. In that case, such a proposal would just stay in the incubator. (I wouldn't be surprised if there are projects that are happy to stay in the incubator - I myself have one of those, namely lag:wt)
Fwiw, Oliver
On 20-Jun-18 00:36, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, As always, eligible means that when people put in the effort and it is proven to be that language it will be approved. Stale imho only means that a past attempt was not succesful so that we do not have to continually monitor it. Eligibility is not affected by staleness. Thanks, GerardM
On 19 June 2018 at 23:14, Steven White <Koala19890@hotmail.com mailto:Koala19890@hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi. Please see this comment <https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_committee#Some_old_requests_that_don%27t_have_Incubator_tests_but_also_%E2%80%9Celigible%E2%80%9D> on Meta. Contributors pointed out three cases in which a request was marked "eligible" (usually long ago), but where a test project was never started. Question I have for you is: Should I leave them alone, or change them to "rejected as stale"? I can go either way on this. If we were evaluating them now, we'd close them as stale. But my big concern in trying to process all of these requests is to try to clear the backlog of "discussion" and "on hold" requests, because those make us appear as if we're not doing anything. There are many old requests with the status of "eligible" because people work on them only sporadically. In a sense, these are no different. I'd appreciate some opinions on this. Steven Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook> _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org <mailto:Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org> https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom <https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom>http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient Virus-free. www.avg.com http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient
<#DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom