Hoi,
There are short lines of communications. Personally I hate when there is
too much bureacracy. Your opening the discussion is EXACTLY why I have a
distaste for these line of arguments. It is not up to you.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 10 April 2018 at 22:35, MarcoAurelio <strigiwm(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Ah of course, rules are for outsiders then. I have
reopened the discussion
as it was closed against policy.
2018-04-10 22:32 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>om>:
> Hoi,
> The Language Committee does not have your need to be bureaucratic. Given
> the amount of work done by Steven he has considerable room to maneuver. So
> no, I do not agree with your legalistic point of view.
> Thanks,
> GerardM
>
> On 10 April 2018 at 22:28, MarcoAurelio <strigiwm(a)gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> Again, Steven (not a LangCom member, and policy says the proposal has to
>> come from a LangCom member) proposed to reject the project based on his own
>> personal --not supported by policy-- personal opinion and ignoring
>> consensus to close the project in the PCP page.
>>
>> Let's assume in areas of not being utterly bureaucratic that the clerk
>> can formulate such proposal to the committee. Gerard, after asking few
>> questions, supported the closure (effectively objecting Steven's proposal).
>> Nobody said anything else. As things stand, the proposal to reject was
>> rejected as it didn't had any quorum here, silence not being enough.
>>
>> Therefore the PCP has to remain open or a new proposal put forward this
>> committee.
>>
>> Policy is policy and we're suposed to follow it.
>>
>> Regards, M.
>>
>> 2018-04-10 21:03 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen(a)sil.org>rg>:
>>
>>> Not so - Steven's proposal on April 2 was to *reject* the proposal for
>>> closure. I didn't oppose Steven's proposal as I was happy to keep it
open.
>>>
>>> Fwiw,
>>> Oliver
>>>
>>> On 10-Apr-18 18:40, MarcoAurelio wrote:
>>>
>>> If so there has been unanimous consensus to close, as Gerard supported
>>> and no one opposed. Thanks, M.
>>>
>>> El El mar, 10 abr 2018 a las 15:48, Steven White <
>>> Koala19890(a)hotmail.com> escribió:
>>>
>>>> Marco, with due respect, I first posted a notice on this on March 19.
>>>> I let it run until April 2. Up to that point, the only member of LangCom
>>>> (other than me) who had commented substantively was Gerard. Then on April
2
>>>> I announced that if I didn't hear anything else from anyone in
another
>>>> week, I was going to close as rejected. And I heard nothing else, even
from
>>>> Gerard. So on April 9 I marked as rejected. That fulfilled all
requirement
>>>> of the current voting policy.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Frankly, I wish more members of the Committee would take a more active
>>>> role in discussions. But I am trying very hard not to allow requests to
>>>> back up, and to work through backlogs. So as long as all requirements of
>>>> policy have been met, I will continue to move things along.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Steven
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* Langcom <langcom-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org> on behalf of
>>>> langcom-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org <langcom-request(a)lists.wikimed
>>>> ia.org>
>>>> *Sent:* Tuesday, April 10, 2018 8:00 AM
>>>> *To:* langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>> *Subject:* Langcom Digest, Vol 55, Issue 9
>>>>
>>>> Send Langcom mailing list submissions to
>>>> langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
>>>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>>>>
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A
>>>> %2F%2Flists.wikimedia.org%2Fmailman%2Flistinfo%2Flangcom&dat
>>>> a=02%7C01%7C%7C57857d893a0048091e6808d59edabbba%7C84df9e7fe9
>>>> f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636589584646177925&sdata=
>>>> 8eKULGE1sOMGx5UXaGByVCGx09a7CGO6DWv9MtK3kbw%3D&reserved=0
>>>> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>>>> langcom-request(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
>>>> You can reach the person managing the list at
>>>> langcom-owner(a)lists.wikimedia.org
>>>>
>>>> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
>>>> than "Re: Contents of Langcom digest..."
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Today's Topics:
>>>>
>>>> 1. Re: Several updates (MarcoAurelio)
>>>> 2. Re: Approval for Santali Wikipedia (Michael Everson)
>>>> 3. Open Wikipedia requests dating to 2011 (fifth and final set)
>>>> (Steven White)
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>>>>
>>>> Message: 1
>>>> Date: Mon, 9 Apr 2018 22:28:39 +0200
>>>> From: MarcoAurelio <strigiwm(a)gmail.com>
>>>> To: Wikimedia Foundation Language Committee
>>>> <langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org>
>>>> Subject: Re: [Langcom] Several updates
>>>> Message-ID:
>>>> <CA+DRDAauKMKWhEYz6mMrz0_ow58FHELjOQKBb0U4XY=MnP5NmA(a)mail.gm
>>>> ail.com>
>>>> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Hi,
>>>>
>>>> >
>>>> > Rejecting request to close Malagasy Wikibooks—comment by only one
>>>> LangCom
>>>> member is not sufficient to constitute consensus to close a project
>>>> that
>>>> has no violatons of fundamental rules
>>>> >
>>>>
>>>> Sorry but I find this rather innapropriate and contrary to LangCom
>>>> voting
>>>> rules as stated at: <
>>>>
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A
>>>> %2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FLanguage_committee%2FVotin
>>>> g_policy&data=02%7C01%7C%7C57857d893a0048091e6808d59edabbba%
>>>> 7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636589584646177
>>>> 925&sdata=jjM1Wdz7W1Jj5KjF%2BXSD%2BbmWbwtbyX5czOknGsv1GQs
>>>> %3D&reserved=0> and the
>>>>
>>>> closure of projects policy decision policy <
>>>>
https://eur02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A
>>>> %2F%2Fmeta.wikimedia.org%2Fwiki%2FClosing_projects_policy%23
>>>> Decision&data=02%7C01%7C%7C57857d893a0048091e6808d59edabbba%
>>>> 7C84df9e7fe9f640afb435aaaaaaaaaaaa%7C1%7C0%7C636589584646177
>>>>
925&sdata=ChBxgo77hyK0Hp3WfOxEv22YQS9KiV8pqAELqkfFKFw%3D&reserved=0>.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There has to be a proposal comming from a LangCom member, announced on
>>>> this
>>>> list and to the community, and thereafter a voting has to take place,
>>>> with
>>>> the Board holding ultimate vetoing power.
>>>>
>>>> None of such steps have been taken.
>>>>
>>>> The decision should be reversed as being done against policy.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks, M.
>>>>