Mostly, it has to do with the action date. I don't think it makes WMF or LangCom look very good to have dozens of projects that appear to have been pending for over five years, especially when the requester is someone who showed up for a day, or a couple of weeks, and then has disappeared. I think it's much better to make sure the requests that are pending are current ones.
My intention, once I get to requests that are no more than a couple of years old, is to allow projects to remain "on hold" for 1–2 years, and only after that closing them. I'm figuring that if no one shows up in two years, we ought to move on.
Finally, I do intend to make clear on such pages that a future request would be welcomed if a community (re-)appears in the future.
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
________________________________ From: Langcom langcom-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, January 22, 2018 11:27 AM To: langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Langcom Digest, Vol 52, Issue 16
Send Langcom mailing list submissions to langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wiki... or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at langcom-owner@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: Four more Wikipedia requests dating to the summer of 2010 (Steven White) 2. Final group of projects with requests lingering since 2010 (Steven White)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 22 Jan 2018 14:37:24 +0000 From: Steven White koala19890@hotmail.com To: "langcom@lists.wikimedia.org" langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Langcom] Four more Wikipedia requests dating to the summer of 2010 Message-ID: MWHPR12MB1805E502A0C40BD12713CF439EEC0@MWHPR12MB1805.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Having heard no comments on the proposals with respect to Egyptian and Homshetsma over the last seven days, I will close both as rejected, as described in my original message.
________________________________ From: Langcom langcom-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org on behalf of langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Tuesday, January 16, 2018 7:00 AM To: langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Langcom Digest, Vol 52, Issue 14
Send Langcom mailing list submissions to langcom@lists.wikimedia.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit https://eur01.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Flists.wiki... or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to langcom-request@lists.wikimedia.org
You can reach the person managing the list at langcom-owner@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: Montenegrin project (Steven White) 2. Four more Wikipedia requests dating to the summer of 2010 (Steven White)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1 Date: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 15:35:23 +0000 From: Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com To: "langcom@lists.wikimedia.org" langcom@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Langcom] Montenegrin project Message-ID: CY4PR12MB18000D6A5BA7FB790B277F779EEB0@CY4PR12MB1800.namprd12.prod.outlook.com
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Amir: Someone has written a response to your email to LangCom at the bottom of the discussion page on Meta.
Gerard: You don't get asked all that often here to spend a lot of time on an involved, complicated decision. If I thought I could easily digest it and feed it to you I would. But I don't. I'm not asking you for a lot of time; rather, the community you serve needs you to spend the appropriate amount of time to see the latest evidence and decide what you think.
+1
I concur with Steve's proposal / line of argument concerning "reject as stale" vs "pending / on hold".
On 22-Jan-18 18:05, Steven White wrote:
Mostly, it has to do with the action date. I don't think it makes WMF or LangCom look very good to have dozens of projects that appear to have been pending for over five years, especially when the requester is someone who showed up for a day, or a couple of weeks, and then has disappeared. I think it's much better to make sure the requests that are pending are current ones.
My intention, once I get to requests that are no more than a couple of years old, is to allow projects to remain "on hold" for 1–2 years, and only after that closing them. I'm figuring that if no one shows up in two years, we ought to move on.
Finally, I do intend to make clear on such pages that a future request would be welcomed if a community (re-)appears in the future.
Hoi, Introducing these codes is no problem. It has been agreed that once a language is deemed eligible it remains that way. When a new team comes along it may be good to check the standard again to see if something has changed. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 January 2018 at 21:45, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
+1
I concur with Steve's proposal / line of argument concerning "reject as stale" vs "pending / on hold".
On 22-Jan-18 18:05, Steven White wrote:
Mostly, it has to do with the action date. I don't think it makes WMF or LangCom look very good to have dozens of projects that appear to have been pending for over five years, especially when the requester is someone who showed up for a day, or a couple of weeks, and then has disappeared. I think it's much better to make sure the requests that are pending are current ones.
My intention, once I get to requests that are no more than a couple of years old, is to allow projects to remain "on hold" for 1–2 years, and only after that closing them. I'm figuring that if no one shows up in two years, we ought to move on.
Finally, I do intend to make clear on such pages that a future request would be welcomed if a community (re-)appears in the future.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hm, I'm not so sure about that. If "once a language is eligible it remains that way" holds, why do we need proposals at all? We might just as well create incubator space for every language with a ISO 639-3 code. While it is my vision that we will, one day, have wikis in every language, I don't think cluttering the incubator with projects which remain inactive for years is helpful. So I keep my support of Steve's proposal to mark projects as "reject as stale" if they were proposed by a once person without subsequent action.
Fwiw, Oliver
On 23-Jan-18 08:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Introducing these codes is no problem. It has been agreed that once a language is deemed eligible it remains that way. When a new team comes along it may be good to check the standard again to see if something has changed. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 January 2018 at 21:45, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org mailto:oliver_stegen@sil.org> wrote:
+1 I concur with Steve's proposal / line of argument concerning "reject as stale" vs "pending / on hold". On 22-Jan-18 18:05, Steven White wrote:Mostly, it has to do with the action date. I don't think it makes WMF or LangCom look very good to have dozens of projects that appear to have been pending for over five years, especially when the requester is someone who showed up for a day, or a couple of weeks, and then has disappeared. I think it's much better to make sure the requests that are pending are current ones. My intention, once I get to requests that are no more than a couple of years old, is to allow projects to remain "on hold" for 1–2 years, and only after that closing them. I'm figuring that if no one shows up in two years, we ought to move on. Finally, I do intend to make clear on such pages that a future request would be welcomed if a community (re-)appears in the future._______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, There is a difference between rejecting existing projects on the incubator because they are stale and our consideration for eligibility. I do not mind having projects removed from Incubator. It has never been a real consideration of the language committee what happens there. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 January 2018 at 11:01, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Hm, I'm not so sure about that. If "once a language is eligible it remains that way" holds, why do we need proposals at all? We might just as well create incubator space for every language with a ISO 639-3 code. While it is my vision that we will, one day, have wikis in every language, I don't think cluttering the incubator with projects which remain inactive for years is helpful. So I keep my support of Steve's proposal to mark projects as "reject as stale" if they were proposed by a once person without subsequent action.
Fwiw, Oliver
On 23-Jan-18 08:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Introducing these codes is no problem. It has been agreed that once a language is deemed eligible it remains that way. When a new team comes along it may be good to check the standard again to see if something has changed. Thanks, GerardM
On 22 January 2018 at 21:45, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
+1
I concur with Steve's proposal / line of argument concerning "reject as stale" vs "pending / on hold".
On 22-Jan-18 18:05, Steven White wrote:
Mostly, it has to do with the action date. I don't think it makes WMF or LangCom look very good to have dozens of projects that appear to have been pending for over five years, especially when the requester is someone who showed up for a day, or a couple of weeks, and then has disappeared. I think it's much better to make sure the requests that are pending are current ones.
My intention, once I get to requests that are no more than a couple of years old, is to allow projects to remain "on hold" for 1–2 years, and only after that closing them. I'm figuring that if no one shows up in two years, we ought to move on.
Finally, I do intend to make clear on such pages that a future request would be welcomed if a community (re-)appears in the future.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org 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 <#m_2226521034812243509_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
Langcom mailing listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Oh, so you propose, for eligible languages with ISO 639-3 codes, to have them all in the list "Request for new languages" on Meta, regardless of how inactive they are, but without necessarily any presence on incubator (unless some native speaker starts the project there)? Well, if the others agree, why not?
Cheers, Oliver
On 23-Jan-18 11:28, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, There is a difference between rejecting existing projects on the incubator because they are stale and our consideration for eligibility. I do not mind having projects removed from Incubator. It has never been a real consideration of the language committee what happens there. Thanks, GerardM
On 23 January 2018 at 11:01, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org mailto:oliver_stegen@sil.org> wrote:
Hm, I'm not so sure about that. If "once a language is eligible it remains that way" holds, why do we need proposals at all? We might just as well create incubator space for every language with a ISO 639-3 code. While it is my vision that we will, one day, have wikis in every language, I don't think cluttering the incubator with projects which remain inactive for years is helpful. So I keep my support of Steve's proposal to mark projects as "reject as stale" if they were proposed by a once person without subsequent action. Fwiw, Oliver On 23-Jan-18 08:55, Gerard Meijssen wrote:Hoi, Introducing these codes is no problem. It has been agreed that once a language is deemed eligible it remains that way. When a new team comes along it may be good to check the standard again to see if something has changed. Thanks, GerardM On 22 January 2018 at 21:45, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org <mailto:oliver_stegen@sil.org>> wrote: +1 I concur with Steve's proposal / line of argument concerning "reject as stale" vs "pending / on hold". On 22-Jan-18 18:05, Steven White wrote:Mostly, it has to do with the action date. I don't think it makes WMF or LangCom look very good to have dozens of projects that appear to have been pending for over five years, especially when the requester is someone who showed up for a day, or a couple of weeks, and then has disappeared. I think it's much better to make sure the requests that are pending are current ones. My intention, once I get to requests that are no more than a couple of years old, is to allow projects to remain "on hold" for 1–2 years, and only after that closing them. I'm figuring that if no one shows up in two years, we ought to move on. Finally, I do intend to make clear on such pages that a future request would be welcomed if a community (re-)appears in the future._______________________________________________ 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> <#m_2226521034812243509_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2> _______________________________________________ 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>_______________________________________________ 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>
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom