I am not in any particular rush to continue this conversation. The way
Milos has rubbed everybody and did not stop and did go on is problematic.
For me the whole idea of a language foundation is something not to be
desired when it expresses this kind of unworkable radicalism.
So let us stall everything for a moment certainly for a month and let us
stew on where we are and what we want to achieve and realistically can
On 17 May 2017 at 20:28, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
We've started discussion about this policy on the
private list because
of one example.
I thought we've concluded that, but I see now that MF-Warburg's
comments haven't been addressed.
Note: When we start voting (after finishing discussion), this will
need 2/3 to pass. Although we haven't yet formally defined the exact
ratios for particular, it's obvious that we won't go with simple
majority in relation to the policy change.
On Tue, Feb 14, 2017 at 6:44 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com>
I think this needs some discussion. I'm not
really excited about it, but
think you could convince me.
2017-02-08 2:13 GMT+01:00 Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com>om>:
Gerard and I were talking today about this issue. Here is the proposal
to be added into the LPP if accepted. Gerard's parts are related to
the traditional LangCom requirements, my parts are about the
organizations. Feel free to fix my English, add whatever you think
it's important for the amendment itself etc. (Asaf, Carlos, you are
encouraged to give your input in relation to the organizational part.)
Note that this proposal assumes that both Wikimedia and non-Wikimedia
organizations would be able to propose a project for fast approval.
* * *
Fast approval assumes that the Language committee would approve
previously eligible first Wikimedia project in particular language
under certain conditions without necessity for the project to pass the
process inside of Incubator (which usually lasts at least six months,
but likely a couple of years).
I'm surprised that your proposal is to restrict it to the first project.
Haven't such ideas come up in the past more frequently for Wikisource,
a Wikipedia already existed? (I recall some
things proposed by Gerard).
I don't remember that. I think it makes sense to do that with the
first project because telling to particular community that they are
welcome. Afterwards, they should work on their capacities. Also,
Wikisource doesn't seem like a problem, as there is Multilingual
Or we want something different?
condition for fast approval is officially expressed support
by particular organization, which would guarantee that the project
would be viable for the next two years.
Does that mean the organisation should commit to edit the project? And
if it doesn't do what it guaranteed?
I suppose not to edit, but to organize people to edit.
I suppose that they should give us a very good reason why they failed
and/or a good reason how their next project could succeed if they want
us to listen to them next time. Keep in mind that it would be a
serious issue for an average chapter.
But, also, keep in mind that this could be just a test project from
our side and to analyze success after, let's say, 10 projects created
in that way.
With these requirements, it doesn't sound too
However, when I think of chapters (or whatever) working together with a
community to start a new Wikipedia, I always think of the Minangkabau
Wikipedia, which started with some action (editathon maybe, I don't
remember) from Wikimedia Indonesia, and which quickly got a highly active
community, and was approved in record time (three months in Incubator, I
think). Doesn't simply proving that the proposed project is good by
achieving such an activity in Incubator sound better than first battling
around with Langcom about the plan?
I've checked data about Minangkabau  and it has 5.5 million of
speakers. It is very likely that the most of similar cases would be
about languages with much smaller number of speakers (few hundred
thousands) and it would be challenging to a chapter to gather enough
of editors for a highly active community.
Besides that, Siska is an extraordinary manager in that way and was
motivated to make a success story. We can't count on such
circumstances as a rule.
Langcom mailing list