Here are four RFL requests for Wikipedia projects dating to 2009 or earlier:
* Kichwa Wikipedia (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Kichwa): Interesting request. There is already a "Quechua" Wikipedia at qu.wikipedia.orghttps://qu.wikipedia.org/http://qu.wikipedia.org. That's a macrolanguage code for all Quechua varieties, but that project itself is apparently written mainly in the Southern Quechua varieties spoken in southern Peru and Bolivia. The test project under discussion here uses qug, the language code for "Chimborazo Highland Quechua", but in fact represents a variety of Ecuadorean (Northern) varieties. (The Wp info pages on Incubator for 13 other codes redirect to this one.) According to the English Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechuan_languages#Classification) mutual intelligibility between regions is not complete. I am not in a position to say whether the current quwiki can or should incorporate this content in the long run, but on the whole I'm inclined to recommend that this be marked "eligible" for now. * Southern Min Wikipedia written in Hanji (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Souther...): This one is related to my question earlier in the week, so I'm not going to discuss further here. * Mohawk Wikipedia (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Mohawk): Indigenous language of North America. No reason it shouldn't be eligible, and I marked it so. * Hazaragi Wikipedia (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Hazarag...): Eastern Persian variety mutually intelligible with Dari. The request for a Dari Wikipedia, in turn, was rejected about five years ago because Dari was considered mutually intelligible with Standard Persian. And the 11-page test project on Incubator has been utterly inactive since 2014. So notwithstanding that Hazaragi has a language code, this request should probably be rejected in favor of encouraging participation at fawiki.
Steven
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Kichwa Wikipedia (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Kichwa): Interesting request. There is already a "Quechua" Wikipedia at qu.wikipedia.org. That's a macrolanguage code for all Quechua varieties, but that project itself is apparently written mainly in the Southern Quechua varieties spoken in southern Peru and Bolivia. The test project under discussion here uses qug, the language code for "Chimborazo Highland Quechua", but in fact represents a variety of Ecuadorean (Northern) varieties. (The Wp info pages on Incubator for 13 other codes redirect to this one.) According to the English Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechuan_languages#Classification) mutual intelligibility between regions is not complete. I am not in a position to say whether the current quwiki can or should incorporate this content in the long run, but on the whole I'm inclined to recommend that this be marked "eligible" for now.
Quechua is, actually, a primary language group (although likely connected with Aymaran), but the distance between the languages is not on the level of, for example, Indo-European langauges.
What's more important is that there is an ongoing process of standardization of the northern Quechuan languages into one standard Ecuadorian Quechua language. As far as I remember, the Kichwa request is, actually, the request for that language and it is likely that the new Ecuadorian Quechua would get another ISO 639-3 code, as it will be based on multiple existing languages.
I agree to make ti eligible, not to insist on "pure Kichwa" in Incubator and to be ready to change the code in the future.
Hoi, When we cannot civilly talk to each other, then no, we are not agreeing on anything. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 21:41, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Dec 8, 2017 at 7:40 PM, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Kichwa Wikipedia (https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_
languages/Wikipedia_Kichwa):
Interesting request. There is already a "Quechua" Wikipedia at qu.wikipedia.org. That's a macrolanguage code for all Quechua
varieties, but
that project itself is apparently written mainly in the Southern Quechua varieties spoken in southern Peru and Bolivia. The test project under discussion here uses qug, the language code for "Chimborazo Highland Quechua", but in fact represents a variety of Ecuadorean (Northern) varieties. (The Wp info pages on Incubator for 13 other codes redirect to this one.) According to the English Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quechuan_languages#Classification) mutual intelligibility between regions is not complete. I am not in a position
to
say whether the current quwiki can or should incorporate this content in
the
long run, but on the whole I'm inclined to recommend that this be marked "eligible" for now.
Quechua is, actually, a primary language group (although likely connected with Aymaran), but the distance between the languages is not on the level of, for example, Indo-European langauges.
What's more important is that there is an ongoing process of standardization of the northern Quechuan languages into one standard Ecuadorian Quechua language. As far as I remember, the Kichwa request is, actually, the request for that language and it is likely that the new Ecuadorian Quechua would get another ISO 639-3 code, as it will be based on multiple existing languages.
I agree to make ti eligible, not to insist on "pure Kichwa" in Incubator and to be ready to change the code in the future.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When we cannot civilly talk to each other, then no, we are not agreeing on anything.
Ah, I didn't expect nothing better from you! Because of our conflict, you are ready to punish unrelated people from the developing world. You know, not white. That's very racist attitude! But, you are also the person finding excuses for Zwarte Piet, meaning that the Language committee and Wikimedia Foundation have real problem by harboring an open racist.
Gods almighty.
Stop hating one another, would you two?
On 9 Dec 2017, at 22:01, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When we cannot civilly talk to each other, then no, we are not agreeing on anything.
Ah, I didn't expect nothing better from you! Because of our conflict, you are ready to punish unrelated people from the developing world. You know, not white. That's very racist attitude! But, you are also the person finding excuses for Zwarte Piet, meaning that the Language committee and Wikimedia Foundation have real problem by harboring an open racist.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, The quality of the conversation at the Language Committee is now openly hostile. I have been called incompetent, a liar and a racist.
What is possible to get to a state where we talk civilly and consider the business at hand. The language committee has to function and I will not let myself be bullied in whatever opinion held by others. Arguments, valid arguments suffice. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 December 2017 at 23:01, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Dec 9, 2017 at 10:53 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
When we cannot civilly talk to each other, then no, we are not agreeing
on
anything.
Ah, I didn't expect nothing better from you! Because of our conflict, you are ready to punish unrelated people from the developing world. You know, not white. That's very racist attitude! But, you are also the person finding excuses for Zwarte Piet, meaning that the Language committee and Wikimedia Foundation have real problem by harboring an open racist.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 9:34 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The quality of the conversation at the Language Committee is now openly hostile. I have been called incompetent, a liar and a racist.
Liar maybe not and I apologize for that, but definitely incompetent and racist. Counting that the incompetence is a virtue inside of the Wikimedia movement, the last one is the most serious issue in relation to the WMF and you should at least stop showing your racist face if you are not capable to stop being a racist.
What is possible to get to a state where we talk civilly and consider the business at hand. The language committee has to function and I will not let myself be bullied in whatever opinion held by others. Arguments, valid arguments suffice.
Stop with provocations and do your job as a member of the Language committee.
Miloš, your accusations of “racism” on the part of Gerard are horseshit. How dare you! Gerard has sometimes been rigid in his views about some of the things we are responsible for. So have I. For you to take something you disagree with and paint it as skin-colour-based antagonism is paranoid and inappropriate.
Please do not use this kind of rhetoric. It is unpleasant and it is wrong. All of us here support minority languages wherever they are on our planet.
If you cannot avoid this kind of disruptive rhetoric we should re-consider your participation here. I do not like thinking or saying this, but your recent rants have been very offensive indeed.
Michael Everson
On Sun, Dec 10, 2017 at 4:50 PM, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
Miloš, your accusations of “racism” on the part of Gerard are horseshit. How dare you! Gerard has sometimes been rigid in his views about some of the things we are responsible for. So have I. For you to take something you disagree with and paint it as skin-colour-based antagonism is paranoid and inappropriate.
Please do not use this kind of rhetoric. It is unpleasant and it is wrong. All of us here support minority languages wherever they are on our planet.
Ah, the new term for "my friend is a racist" is "sometimes he has rigid views". Good to know.
If you cannot avoid this kind of disruptive rhetoric we should re-consider your participation here. I do not like thinking or saying this, but your recent rants have been very offensive indeed.
Business as usual will never come back here. Not just because of me, but because of the structural changes far beyond our abilities. If provoked by you or Gerard, I will always escalate the conflict, as I personally do not give a shit what do racists think of me. One option is not to provoke me, the other options is to "reconsider my participation here".
You should try that and, to be honest, I would like you to succeed. That would give me free hands in handling racism issues related to the various Internet institutions and parainstitutions.
In relation to that matter, as we don't have a clear procedure for the committee members removal, I would agree two step down in one of the following cases:
1) Like any proposal, if nobody objects for seven days after the proposal (I won't object). That would tell me that I have no obligations towards other LangCom members.
2) WMF Board makes decision, which doesn't need to be formal.
Good luck!
I support Michael's call to stop offensive rants. And to be precise: Miloš, I perceive your posts and attitude to be highly disruptive (and that is not just my personal opinion but based on the standards of committee etiquette of several other non-profit organisations I'm familiar with) - it is impossible to work together in the face of such accusations and language. Please change and interact with us in a civil way. If you cannot do that, I support Michael's suggestion to reconsider your participation here.
Cordially, Oliver
On 10-Dec-17 16:50, Michael Everson wrote:
Miloš, your accusations of “racism” on the part of Gerard are horseshit. How dare you! Gerard has sometimes been rigid in his views about some of the things we are responsible for. So have I. For you to take something you disagree with and paint it as skin-colour-based antagonism is paranoid and inappropriate.
Please do not use this kind of rhetoric. It is unpleasant and it is wrong. All of us here support minority languages wherever they are on our planet.
If you cannot avoid this kind of disruptive rhetoric we should re-consider your participation here. I do not like thinking or saying this, but your recent rants have been very offensive indeed.
Michael Everson _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
I support Michael's call to stop offensive rants. And to be precise: Miloš, I perceive your posts and attitude to be highly disruptive (and that is not just my personal opinion but based on the standards of committee etiquette of several other non-profit organisations I'm familiar with) - it is impossible to work together in the face of such accusations and language. Please change and interact with us in a civil way. If you cannot do that, I support Michael's suggestion to reconsider your participation here.
I see this kind of emails useless. I've already said I will do the same whenever provoked and I've already said what you should do to "reconsider" my position here.
You know, Miloš, our world is full of imperfection. We’ve had patriarchy at least since the incursions of the Indo-Europeans into the Balkans in the 4th millennium BC. We’ve survived wars and persecution perpetrated for purposes of land, money, religion, sex, kin-colour, sexuality, and other kinds of power.
This group exists to help people make encyclopaedias in their own language. That is, on its own, a strong indication that we all care about those who lack privilege. Many of us on this list are privileged. Most of us are men. Most have a Fitzpatrick skin type of 1 or 2. Most are probably heterosexual. Some are atheists. Some are native speakers of English. All have plenty of electricity and education and tech.
For you to perceive the smallest injustice or infelicity and label it “racism” and then to attack another member of the group is not wise. There is a fairly large movement going on right now, reported widely in the media, which considers accusation and denunciation to be some kind of cure of all the woes patriarchy has foisted upon our civilization.
Not one of us here is a racist. Not one of us here is perfect. All of us have some privilege even if that intersects with one or more unprivileges.
Please calm down. You have been a valuable member of this group for a long time. Please resolve not to attack Gerard or anyone else with the word “racist”. Using the word doesn’t make it so, and your using it hasn’t made us all realize how right you are.
I remember well the positive meetings we had in Berlin. I even remember discussions of how we might tap into some oligarch funding via Serbian connections to achieve some of our goals. But it is our goals which are important.
Michael
Michael, I appreciate your effort to be constructive.
In short, it is late for real life cooperation. It is late for mutual respect, as well. But it is not late for doing the job of LangCom members without provocations and by not obstructing creation of Wikimedia projects in languages which speakers are not enough connected to be relevant for Gerard.
P.S. It was not about an oligarch, but about a state-owned company.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 2:34 PM, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
You know, Miloš, our world is full of imperfection. We’ve had patriarchy at least since the incursions of the Indo-Europeans into the Balkans in the 4th millennium BC. We’ve survived wars and persecution perpetrated for purposes of land, money, religion, sex, kin-colour, sexuality, and other kinds of power.
This group exists to help people make encyclopaedias in their own language. That is, on its own, a strong indication that we all care about those who lack privilege. Many of us on this list are privileged. Most of us are men. Most have a Fitzpatrick skin type of 1 or 2. Most are probably heterosexual. Some are atheists. Some are native speakers of English. All have plenty of electricity and education and tech.
For you to perceive the smallest injustice or infelicity and label it “racism” and then to attack another member of the group is not wise. There is a fairly large movement going on right now, reported widely in the media, which considers accusation and denunciation to be some kind of cure of all the woes patriarchy has foisted upon our civilization.
Not one of us here is a racist. Not one of us here is perfect. All of us have some privilege even if that intersects with one or more unprivileges.
Please calm down. You have been a valuable member of this group for a long time. Please resolve not to attack Gerard or anyone else with the word “racist”. Using the word doesn’t make it so, and your using it hasn’t made us all realize how right you are.
I remember well the positive meetings we had in Berlin. I even remember discussions of how we might tap into some oligarch funding via Serbian connections to achieve some of our goals. But it is our goals which are important.
Michael _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 11 Dec 2017, at 15:41, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, I appreciate your effort to be constructive.
Thank you for saying so.
In short, it is late for real life cooperation.
Nope. One just chooses to cooperate.
It is late for mutual respect, as well.
Nope. One just chooses to Assume Good Faith and one chooses not to attack.
But it is not late for doing the job of LangCom members without provocations and by not obstructing creation of Wikimedia projects in languages which speakers are not enough connected to be relevant for Gerard.
To be honest I don’t even remember what projects are being held up at this point, but I don’t think it is fair to attack Gerard for it. I support LFN. I would oppose Neo-Tengwar. I know why.
P.S. It was not about an oligarch, but about a state-owned company.
Fair enough. The line there is sometimes blurred, depending on country.
Michael
As an observer :)
Thanks Steven, for showcasing the benefits of clerking & consistency. This list on avg is rewardingly respectful (aside from sporadic two-party flame wars). Simple etiquette rules do inevitably help keep things on track (examples as far back as the first political gatherings!). Both of the proposals seem fine and simple.
I appreciate Miloš's erudition and relevant knowledge, but his repeated
baseless personal attacks have to stop.
Yes, please. It doesn't even matter how baseless; all personal attacks waste energy + spirit + time.
Warmly, SJ
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:44 PM, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
On 11 Dec 2017, at 15:41, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Michael, I appreciate your effort to be constructive.
Thank you for saying so.
In short, it is late for real life cooperation.
Nope. One just chooses to cooperate.
It is late for mutual respect, as well.
Nope. One just chooses to Assume Good Faith and one chooses not to attack.
But it is not late for doing the job of LangCom members without
provocations and by not obstructing creation of Wikimedia projects in languages which speakers are not enough connected to be relevant for Gerard.
To be honest I don’t even remember what projects are being held up at this point, but I don’t think it is fair to attack Gerard for it. I support LFN. I would oppose Neo-Tengwar. I know why.
P.S. It was not about an oligarch, but about a state-owned company.
Fair enough. The line there is sometimes blurred, depending on country.
Michael _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
If we cannot agree on committee etiquette, i.e. rules about interaction which respects human dignity, we will not succeed in setting up rules about anything else either.
I propose the following rule:
* No flaming! (i.e. no ad hominem attacks, and no profanity) * Perpetrators who repeat the offense after being reprimanded will be blocked for one month.
Feel free to discuss, add and/or amend. I still think we have to start somewhere to get our interaction to an acceptable level again. There are some widely agreed-upon netiquette standards out there (e.g. [1]-[3]; the slide inserted below is from [4]). I would have hoped that we don't need such rules but frequent flare-ups over the years have finally convinced me otherwise.
I herewith _*ask for votes on my proposed rule*_ within the usual 7-day deadline. Should discussion lead to additions or amendments (like including more detailed rules from the examples I listed below), the deadline will be postponed accordingly.
Fwiw, Oliver
[1] https://lifehacker.com/5473859/basic-etiquette-for-email-lists-and-forums [2] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-netiquette-guidelines-writing-emails-forum-po... (esp. no.7) [3] https://www.simplehelp.net/2006/08/14/how-to-be-polite-while-youre-online-pr... [4] http://images.slideplayer.com/47/11762279/slides/slide_3.jpg
On 11-Dec-17 12:21, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
I support Michael's call to stop offensive rants. And to be precise: Miloš, I perceive your posts and attitude to be highly disruptive (and that is not just my personal opinion but based on the standards of committee etiquette of several other non-profit organisations I'm familiar with) - it is impossible to work together in the face of such accusations and language. Please change and interact with us in a civil way. If you cannot do that, I support Michael's suggestion to reconsider your participation here.
I see this kind of emails useless. I've already said I will do the same whenever provoked and I've already said what you should do to "reconsider" my position here.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. http://www.avg.com
Oliver, I do not agree with your proposal and it's already doomed, as our present system for making decisions is strict consensus.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
If we cannot agree on committee etiquette, i.e. rules about interaction which respects human dignity, we will not succeed in setting up rules about anything else either.
I propose the following rule:
- No flaming! (i.e. no ad hominem attacks, and no profanity)
- Perpetrators who repeat the offense after being reprimanded will be
blocked for one month.
Feel free to discuss, add and/or amend. I still think we have to start somewhere to get our interaction to an acceptable level again. There are some widely agreed-upon netiquette standards out there (e.g. [1]-[3]; the slide inserted below is from [4]). I would have hoped that we don't need such rules but frequent flare-ups over the years have finally convinced me otherwise.
I herewith *ask for votes on my proposed rule* within the usual 7-day deadline. Should discussion lead to additions or amendments (like including more detailed rules from the examples I listed below), the deadline will be postponed accordingly.
Fwiw, Oliver
[1] https://lifehacker.com/5473859/basic-etiquette-for- email-lists-and-forums [2] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-netiquette-guidelines- writing-emails-forum-posts/ (esp. no.7) [3] https://www.simplehelp.net/2006/08/14/how-to-be-polite- while-youre-online-practicing-good-netiquette/ [4] http://images.slideplayer.com/47/11762279/slides/slide_3.jpg
On 11-Dec-17 12:21, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
I support Michael's call to stop offensive rants. And to be precise: Miloš, I perceive your posts and attitude to be highly disruptive (and that is not just my personal opinion but based on the standards of committee etiquette of several other non-profit organisations I'm familiar with) - it is impossible to work together in the face of such accusations and language. Please change and interact with us in a civil way. If you cannot do that, I support Michael's suggestion to reconsider your participation here.
I see this kind of emails useless. I've already said I will do the same whenever provoked and I've already said what you should do to "reconsider" my position here.
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.http://www.avg.com
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
No, we changed that, remember? https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy
Am 11.12.2017 3:43 nachm. schrieb "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com:
Oliver, I do not agree with your proposal and it's already doomed, as our present system for making decisions is strict consensus.
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 3:40 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
If we cannot agree on committee etiquette, i.e. rules about interaction which respects human dignity, we will not succeed in setting up rules about anything else either.
I propose the following rule:
- No flaming! (i.e. no ad hominem attacks, and no profanity)
- Perpetrators who repeat the offense after being reprimanded will be
blocked for one month.
Feel free to discuss, add and/or amend. I still think we have to start somewhere to get our interaction to an acceptable level again. There are some widely agreed-upon netiquette standards out there (e.g. [1]-[3]; the slide inserted below is from [4]). I would have hoped that we don't need such rules but frequent flare-ups over the years have finally convinced me otherwise.
I herewith *ask for votes on my proposed rule* within the usual 7-day deadline. Should discussion lead to additions or amendments (like including more detailed rules from the examples I listed below), the deadline will be postponed accordingly.
Fwiw, Oliver
[1] https://lifehacker.com/5473859/basic-etiquette-for-email- lists-and-forums [2] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-netiquette-guidelines-writing -emails-forum-posts/ (esp. no.7) [3] https://www.simplehelp.net/2006/08/14/how-to-be-polite-while -youre-online-practicing-good-netiquette/ [4] http://images.slideplayer.com/47/11762279/slides/slide_3.jpg
On 11-Dec-17 12:21, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
I support Michael's call to stop offensive rants. And to be precise: Miloš, I perceive your posts and attitude to be highly disruptive (and that is not just my personal opinion but based on the standards of committee etiquette of several other non-profit organisations I'm familiar with) - it is impossible to work together in the face of such accusations and language. Please change and interact with us in a civil way. If you cannot do that, I support Michael's suggestion to reconsider your participation here.
I see this kind of emails useless. I've already said I will do the same whenever provoked and I've already said what you should do to "reconsider" my position here.
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.http://www.avg.com
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 Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:24 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
No, we changed that, remember? https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_ committee/Voting_policy
AFAIK, we have never concluded that. Have we, Gerard?
I thought we did conclude this.
On 11 Dec 2017, at 15:26, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 4:24 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote: No, we changed that, remember? https://meta.m.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy
AFAIK, we have never concluded that. Have we, Gerard?
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
On 11 Dec 2017, at 14:42, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
Oliver, I do not agree with your proposal and it's already doomed, as our present system for making decisions is strict consensus.
I do agree with Oliver’s proposal, and consensus (which is not the same as unanimity) would be achieved in the absence of the person who persisted in flaming after being reprimanded. That person would have a vote again after re-instatement.
Michael
I would propose a more lenient rule:
- No flaming! (i.e. no ad hominem attacks, and no profanity) - Perpetrators who repeat the offense after being reprimanded will be put on moderation for a month. The list moderators will approve all mails except those that contain “flaming“.
This way a member can still participate but the rest of us be spared from reading the insults.
Am 11.12.2017 3:40 nachm. schrieb "Oliver Stegen" oliver_stegen@sil.org:
If we cannot agree on committee etiquette, i.e. rules about interaction which respects human dignity, we will not succeed in setting up rules about anything else either.
I propose the following rule:
- No flaming! (i.e. no ad hominem attacks, and no profanity) - Perpetrators who repeat the offense after being reprimanded will be blocked for one month.
Feel free to discuss, add and/or amend. I still think we have to start somewhere to get our interaction to an acceptable level again. There are some widely agreed-upon netiquette standards out there (e.g. [1]-[3]; the slide inserted below is from [4]). I would have hoped that we don't need such rules but frequent flare-ups over the years have finally convinced me otherwise.
I herewith *ask for votes on my proposed rule* within the usual 7-day deadline. Should discussion lead to additions or amendments (like including more detailed rules from the examples I listed below), the deadline will be postponed accordingly.
Fwiw, Oliver
[1] https://lifehacker.com/5473859/basic-etiquette-for- email-lists-and-forums [2] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-netiquette-guidelines- writing-emails-forum-posts/ (esp. no.7) [3] https://www.simplehelp.net/2006/08/14/how-to-be-polite- while-youre-online-practicing-good-netiquette/ [4] http://images.slideplayer.com/47/11762279/slides/slide_3.jpg
On 11-Dec-17 12:21, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
I support Michael's call to stop offensive rants. And to be precise: Miloš, I perceive your posts and attitude to be highly disruptive (and that is not just my personal opinion but based on the standards of committee etiquette of several other non-profit organisations I'm familiar with) - it is impossible to work together in the face of such accusations and language. Please change and interact with us in a civil way. If you cannot do that, I support Michael's suggestion to reconsider your participation here.
I see this kind of emails useless. I've already said I will do the same whenever provoked and I've already said what you should do to "reconsider" my position here.
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
--- This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.http://www.avg.com
_______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I support Oliver's suggestion.
I don't know what conflict is Miloš referring to when he's saying "Because of our conflict, you are ready to punish unrelated people". If it was mentioned in other emails, then sorry, I didn't have time to read every single one of them, so I don't know why and when did it start. But my gut feeling is that Miloš's repeated escalation is completely unnecessary and wrong.
I appreciate Miloš's erudition and relevant knowledge, but his repeated baseless personal attacks have to stop.
-- Amir Elisha Aharoni · אָמִיר אֱלִישָׁע אַהֲרוֹנִי http://aharoni.wordpress.com “We're living in pieces, I want to live in peace.” – T. Moore
2017-12-11 16:40 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org:
If we cannot agree on committee etiquette, i.e. rules about interaction which respects human dignity, we will not succeed in setting up rules about anything else either.
I propose the following rule:
- No flaming! (i.e. no ad hominem attacks, and no profanity)
- Perpetrators who repeat the offense after being reprimanded will be
blocked for one month.
Feel free to discuss, add and/or amend. I still think we have to start somewhere to get our interaction to an acceptable level again. There are some widely agreed-upon netiquette standards out there (e.g. [1]-[3]; the slide inserted below is from [4]). I would have hoped that we don't need such rules but frequent flare-ups over the years have finally convinced me otherwise.
I herewith *ask for votes on my proposed rule* within the usual 7-day deadline. Should discussion lead to additions or amendments (like including more detailed rules from the examples I listed below), the deadline will be postponed accordingly.
Fwiw, Oliver
[1] https://lifehacker.com/5473859/basic-etiquette-for- email-lists-and-forums [2] http://www.makeuseof.com/tag/7-netiquette-guidelines- writing-emails-forum-posts/ (esp. no.7) [3] https://www.simplehelp.net/2006/08/14/how-to-be-polite- while-youre-online-practicing-good-netiquette/ [4] http://images.slideplayer.com/47/11762279/slides/slide_3.jpg
On 11-Dec-17 12:21, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Mon, Dec 11, 2017 at 9:18 AM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
I support Michael's call to stop offensive rants. And to be precise: Miloš, I perceive your posts and attitude to be highly disruptive (and that is not just my personal opinion but based on the standards of committee etiquette of several other non-profit organisations I'm familiar with) - it is impossible to work together in the face of such accusations and language. Please change and interact with us in a civil way. If you cannot do that, I support Michael's suggestion to reconsider your participation here.
I see this kind of emails useless. I've already said I will do the same whenever provoked and I've already said what you should do to "reconsider" my position here.
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
This email has been checked for viruses by AVG.http://www.avg.com
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom