I really don't want to approve a project where really nobody could be found
to verify the content, in order to prevent some new Siberian Wikipedia
case. So far we always found someone.
That said, funnily <
says "If all requirements have been met and a detailed investigation finds
no unresolved problems", but does not explicitly mention the expert
verification which we do as part of the "detailed investigation". So it's
already possible to do this in a different way if we really really want to
in a justified case.
2017-12-15 16:14 GMT+01:00 Steven White <Koala19890(a)hotmail.com>om>:
In a way, Oliver, that just emphasizes my point.
Everyone on this
Committee is a volunteer, every bit as much as the contributors to the new
projects. I don't think anyone can expect volunteers here to make
themselves crazy with work, either. On the other hand, at a certain point,
contributors to test projects are entitled to some resolution from us. And
if they've been working hard, doing legitimate work, that resolution should
be favorable, and shouldn't depend on our ability or inability to get a
response from language experts.
I'm inclined to propose a new rule. Following is a draft, not a request
for a vote, just to lay some ideas on the table for everyone:
RULE (DRAFT). To Handbook (committee), Final Approval, item #2
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Handbook_(committee)#Final_approval>,
add the following:
4. If experts have been contacted (per item 1. above) but do not respond,
the test wiki community should be asked to provide the names of two
additional (different) language experts, and those should be contacted as
above.
5. If those experts also do not respond, and at least six months have
passed since the first request for language verification, the following
procedure applies:
5.1. LangCom makes a determination whether it thinks the test project
content is presumed legitimate. This is to be based, subjectively, on the
length of time the test has been open, the size of the test, and the number
of different contributors that have participated over time.
5.2. If LangCom believes the test project content is legitimate, a vote
can be called. The project can be approved if 2/3 of all members voting,
with at least five positive votes, agree.
5.3. Otherwise (or if the vote does not succeed), the test community is
told that language verification has failed, and that they need to continue
working on the test project for another six months, at which time another
attempt will be made for language verification.
Again, these are just ideas for now.
Steven
Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom