One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
1) No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
2) Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
3) 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
4) Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
Hoi, Everything per the previous agreements are fine. So yes, we can have projects when they have a valid ISO-639-3 code. When there is a problem with this, it needs discussion. When someone objects and finds that the arguments are not convincing better arguments need to be found.
Eligibility is the first phase of what we do. When a project is rejected as ineligible, it is final. The next phase is with localisation and enough articles.. It is very much to be understood that there are different approaches to Wikipedia articles. I have proposed in the past that with generated articles (cached not saved) we can do a lot more in providing the sum of all knowledge. We have seen in one of the constructed languages a lot of articles means a lot of traffic (not bot).
In this next phase we may also find organisations that are willing to adopt a language and can convince us to make a difference. This failed in the past for CIS.. :(
We have a policy whereby secondary projects require really strong commitment. I have asked to change this for Wikisource because this is NOT an end user project but much more a project for editors.
As it is we have no mandate for closing projects. All we can do is suggest to the board with arguments why a specific project is to be closed. We have done this only once.
I do not care for percentages of expressed opinion. We need convincing arguments and we have shown plenty times that we can be convinced. So there is no need to change this.
When we change our policy, it requires board approval. Therefore once we agree on a proposal, it needs to be presented with arguments to the board for approval. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
- No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
- Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
- 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
- Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Am 09.02.2017 5:00 nachm. schrieb "Milos Rancic" millosh@gmail.com:
One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
1) No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn out to be contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as eligible without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So if we want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as well?
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
What does this mean exactly?
2) Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient Greek. Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than the possibility to allow everything by a majority vote.
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 codes. Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
3) 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
4) Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a 2/3 majority to introduce a new member anyway. But apart from such strategic trickery, I'd like to comment on the main issue:
Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved unless a member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not exactly rejected, n'est-ce pas?). At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however that in general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I have been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always was: not really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason. But apart from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will help much.
We approved be-tarask.
On 11 Feb 2017, at 17:19, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 codes. Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn out to be contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as eligible without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So if we want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as well?
Agreed.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
What does this mean exactly?
Yes, it could be described more in detail. I thought that we can't vote about approving a new Wikipedia if they didn't translate 500 MediaWiki messages and similar. I was too lazy to take a look into the exact conditions for approval. In other words, we could discuss about the activity, but we can't discuss to approve the project if it's not written in particular language. And similar.
Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient Greek. Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than the possibility to allow everything by a majority vote.
Yes. But it would anyway require majority vote. What's the difference between Ancient Greek and Sumerian? Would we allow Wikipedia in Sumerian? Classical Hebrew? ...
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 codes. Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
In general, we should discuss and (hopefully) approve usage BCP 47 formally, as well. However, it is so wide territory, that it's hard to make a consistent rule about it: Why should we approve qu-ec and why we shouldn't approve en-au? Why it's better to use mn-mong for Mongolian instead of mvf? ...
The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a 2/3 majority to introduce a new member anyway.
Yes. But that would mean that there is something really bad going on here.
Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved unless a member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not exactly rejected, n'est-ce pas?). At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however that in general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I have been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always was: not really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason. But apart from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will help much.
Time and efforts required for arguing with only one person and having in mind that it's useless makes LangCom dysfunctional. Besides that, in few years we could have even 100 requests for eligibility per year. It's likely that 60-70 would be valid, but it's also likely that we would have to spend extraordinary time on discussion about 10-20 of them. Even if it's once per month, it would be stressful enough and lead us into the new period of hibernation.
Besides that, it's not about random persons here, but about people with enough professional and personal integrity. It is normal that we don't agree about everything and that we should accept if more members of LangCom decided to approve the project.
We should start finishing this issue. May all of you check the previous discussion and say if you agree in general with the proposal amended by MF-Warburg? If so, I would make the next draft.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn out to be contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as eligible without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So if we want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as well?
Agreed.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
What does this mean exactly?
Yes, it could be described more in detail. I thought that we can't vote about approving a new Wikipedia if they didn't translate 500 MediaWiki messages and similar. I was too lazy to take a look into the exact conditions for approval. In other words, we could discuss about the activity, but we can't discuss to approve the project if it's not written in particular language. And similar.
Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient Greek. Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than the possibility to allow everything by a majority vote.
Yes. But it would anyway require majority vote. What's the difference between Ancient Greek and Sumerian? Would we allow Wikipedia in Sumerian? Classical Hebrew? ...
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 codes. Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
In general, we should discuss and (hopefully) approve usage BCP 47 formally, as well. However, it is so wide territory, that it's hard to make a consistent rule about it: Why should we approve qu-ec and why we shouldn't approve en-au? Why it's better to use mn-mong for Mongolian instead of mvf? ...
The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a 2/3 majority to introduce a new member anyway.
Yes. But that would mean that there is something really bad going on here.
Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved unless a member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not exactly rejected, n'est-ce pas?). At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however that in general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I have been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always was: not really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason. But apart from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will help much.
Time and efforts required for arguing with only one person and having in mind that it's useless makes LangCom dysfunctional. Besides that, in few years we could have even 100 requests for eligibility per year. It's likely that 60-70 would be valid, but it's also likely that we would have to spend extraordinary time on discussion about 10-20 of them. Even if it's once per month, it would be stressful enough and lead us into the new period of hibernation.
Besides that, it's not about random persons here, but about people with enough professional and personal integrity. It is normal that we don't agree about everything and that we should accept if more members of LangCom decided to approve the project.
Also relevant for this part from Berlin notes:
* There was a question of how to call the vote and what does formal voting mean. It should be flexible, it shouldn't be necessary that everybody votes about everything, but we should definitely define it.
* We should define the rules how to remove the LangCom members. Maybe we should adopt the stewards' confirmation procedure.
Imho, it would be helpful to have a link to the amended proposal, rather than having to wade through previous discussion. Possible to upload and send such a link? (Or maybe that has already happened and I just can't find the link? In which case sorry for not finding it - please still send it to this list.)
On 17-May-17 20:33, Milos Rancic wrote:
We should start finishing this issue. May all of you check the previous discussion and say if you agree in general with the proposal amended by MF-Warburg? If so, I would make the next draft.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn out to be contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as eligible without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So if we want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as well?
Agreed.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
What does this mean exactly?
Yes, it could be described more in detail. I thought that we can't vote about approving a new Wikipedia if they didn't translate 500 MediaWiki messages and similar. I was too lazy to take a look into the exact conditions for approval. In other words, we could discuss about the activity, but we can't discuss to approve the project if it's not written in particular language. And similar.
Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient Greek. Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than the possibility to allow everything by a majority vote.
Yes. But it would anyway require majority vote. What's the difference between Ancient Greek and Sumerian? Would we allow Wikipedia in Sumerian? Classical Hebrew? ...
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 codes. Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
In general, we should discuss and (hopefully) approve usage BCP 47 formally, as well. However, it is so wide territory, that it's hard to make a consistent rule about it: Why should we approve qu-ec and why we shouldn't approve en-au? Why it's better to use mn-mong for Mongolian instead of mvf? ...
The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a 2/3 majority to introduce a new member anyway.
Yes. But that would mean that there is something really bad going on here.
Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved unless a member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not exactly rejected, n'est-ce pas?). At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however that in general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I have been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always was: not really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason. But apart from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will help much.
Time and efforts required for arguing with only one person and having in mind that it's useless makes LangCom dysfunctional. Besides that, in few years we could have even 100 requests for eligibility per year. It's likely that 60-70 would be valid, but it's also likely that we would have to spend extraordinary time on discussion about 10-20 of them. Even if it's once per month, it would be stressful enough and lead us into the new period of hibernation.
Besides that, it's not about random persons here, but about people with enough professional and personal integrity. It is normal that we don't agree about everything and that we should accept if more members of LangCom decided to approve the project.
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, are you able to see the first email in the thread?
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Imho, it would be helpful to have a link to the amended proposal, rather than having to wade through previous discussion. Possible to upload and send such a link? (Or maybe that has already happened and I just can't find the link? In which case sorry for not finding it - please still send it to this list.)
On 17-May-17 20:33, Milos Rancic wrote:
We should start finishing this issue. May all of you check the previous discussion and say if you agree in general with the proposal amended by MF-Warburg? If so, I would make the next draft.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn out to be contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as eligible without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So if we want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as well?
Agreed.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
What does this mean exactly?
Yes, it could be described more in detail. I thought that we can't vote about approving a new Wikipedia if they didn't translate 500 MediaWiki messages and similar. I was too lazy to take a look into the exact conditions for approval. In other words, we could discuss about the activity, but we can't discuss to approve the project if it's not written in particular language. And similar.
Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient Greek. Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than the possibility to allow everything by a majority vote.
Yes. But it would anyway require majority vote. What's the difference between Ancient Greek and Sumerian? Would we allow Wikipedia in Sumerian? Classical Hebrew? ...
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 codes. Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
In general, we should discuss and (hopefully) approve usage BCP 47 formally, as well. However, it is so wide territory, that it's hard to make a consistent rule about it: Why should we approve qu-ec and why we shouldn't approve en-au? Why it's better to use mn-mong for Mongolian instead of mvf? ...
The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a 2/3 majority to introduce a new member anyway.
Yes. But that would mean that there is something really bad going on here.
Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved unless a member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not exactly rejected, n'est-ce pas?). At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however that in general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I have been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always was: not really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason. But apart from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will help much.
Time and efforts required for arguing with only one person and having in mind that it's useless makes LangCom dysfunctional. Besides that, in few years we could have even 100 requests for eligibility per year. It's likely that 60-70 would be valid, but it's also likely that we would have to spend extraordinary time on discussion about 10-20 of them. Even if it's once per month, it would be stressful enough and lead us into the new period of hibernation.
Besides that, it's not about random persons here, but about people with enough professional and personal integrity. It is normal that we don't agree about everything and that we should accept if more members of LangCom decided to approve the project.
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
The first email that I can see only contains sections 1.2, 1.3 and 2.2, i.e. it looks like substantial parts of the proposal are missing. Please upload the entire proposal somewhere and send the link. Thanks.
On 17-May-17 22:43, Milos Rancic wrote:
Oliver, are you able to see the first email in the thread?
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Imho, it would be helpful to have a link to the amended proposal, rather than having to wade through previous discussion. Possible to upload and send such a link? (Or maybe that has already happened and I just can't find the link? In which case sorry for not finding it - please still send it to this list.)
On 17-May-17 20:33, Milos Rancic wrote:
We should start finishing this issue. May all of you check the previous discussion and say if you agree in general with the proposal amended by MF-Warburg? If so, I would make the next draft.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn out to be contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as eligible without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So if we want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as well?
Agreed.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
What does this mean exactly?
Yes, it could be described more in detail. I thought that we can't vote about approving a new Wikipedia if they didn't translate 500 MediaWiki messages and similar. I was too lazy to take a look into the exact conditions for approval. In other words, we could discuss about the activity, but we can't discuss to approve the project if it's not written in particular language. And similar.
Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient Greek. Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than the possibility to allow everything by a majority vote.
Yes. But it would anyway require majority vote. What's the difference between Ancient Greek and Sumerian? Would we allow Wikipedia in Sumerian? Classical Hebrew? ...
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 codes. Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
In general, we should discuss and (hopefully) approve usage BCP 47 formally, as well. However, it is so wide territory, that it's hard to make a consistent rule about it: Why should we approve qu-ec and why we shouldn't approve en-au? Why it's better to use mn-mong for Mongolian instead of mvf? ...
The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a 2/3 majority to introduce a new member anyway.
Yes. But that would mean that there is something really bad going on here.
Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved unless a member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not exactly rejected, n'est-ce pas?). At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however that in general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I have been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always was: not really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason. But apart from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will help much.
Time and efforts required for arguing with only one person and having in mind that it's useless makes LangCom dysfunctional. Besides that, in few years we could have even 100 requests for eligibility per year. It's likely that 60-70 would be valid, but it's also likely that we would have to spend extraordinary time on discussion about 10-20 of them. Even if it's once per month, it would be stressful enough and lead us into the new period of hibernation.
Besides that, it's not about random persons here, but about people with enough professional and personal integrity. It is normal that we don't agree about everything and that we should accept if more members of LangCom decided to approve the project.
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
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
OK. Here is, first, my initial email. I will resend relevant communication afterwards:
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
1) No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
2) Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
3) 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
4) Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
The first email that I can see only contains sections 1.2, 1.3 and 2.2, i.e. it looks like substantial parts of the proposal are missing. Please upload the entire proposal somewhere and send the link. Thanks.
On 17-May-17 22:43, Milos Rancic wrote:
Oliver, are you able to see the first email in the thread?
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Imho, it would be helpful to have a link to the amended proposal, rather than having to wade through previous discussion. Possible to upload and send such a link? (Or maybe that has already happened and I just can't find the link? In which case sorry for not finding it - please still send it to this list.)
On 17-May-17 20:33, Milos Rancic wrote:
We should start finishing this issue. May all of you check the previous discussion and say if you agree in general with the proposal amended by MF-Warburg? If so, I would make the next draft.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
> > 1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for > Wikimedia > projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no > significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population > of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this > case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn out to be contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as eligible without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So if we want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as well?
Agreed.
> 1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be > approved without them.
What does this mean exactly?
Yes, it could be described more in detail. I thought that we can't vote about approving a new Wikipedia if they didn't translate 500 MediaWiki messages and similar. I was too lazy to take a look into the exact conditions for approval. In other words, we could discuss about the activity, but we can't discuss to approve the project if it's not written in particular language. And similar.
Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient Greek. Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than the possibility to allow everything by a majority vote.
Yes. But it would anyway require majority vote. What's the difference between Ancient Greek and Sumerian? Would we allow Wikipedia in Sumerian? Classical Hebrew? ...
> 2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but > valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 codes. Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
In general, we should discuss and (hopefully) approve usage BCP 47 formally, as well. However, it is so wide territory, that it's hard to make a consistent rule about it: Why should we approve qu-ec and why we shouldn't approve en-au? Why it's better to use mn-mong for Mongolian instead of mvf? ...
The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a 2/3 majority to introduce a new member anyway.
Yes. But that would mean that there is something really bad going on here.
Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved unless a member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not exactly rejected, n'est-ce pas?). At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however that in general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I have been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always was: not really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason. But apart from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will help much.
Time and efforts required for arguing with only one person and having in mind that it's useless makes LangCom dysfunctional. Besides that, in few years we could have even 100 requests for eligibility per year. It's likely that 60-70 would be valid, but it's also likely that we would have to spend extraordinary time on discussion about 10-20 of them. Even if it's once per month, it would be stressful enough and lead us into the new period of hibernation.
Besides that, it's not about random persons here, but about people with enough professional and personal integrity. It is normal that we don't agree about everything and that we should accept if more members of LangCom decided to approve the project.
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
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
2017-05-17 22:50 GMT+02:00 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com:
OK. Here is, first, my initial email. I will resend relevant communication afterwards:
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
- No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
- Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
- 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
- Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:48 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
The first email that I can see only contains sections 1.2, 1.3 and 2.2,
i.e.
it looks like substantial parts of the proposal are missing. Please
upload
the entire proposal somewhere and send the link. Thanks.
On 17-May-17 22:43, Milos Rancic wrote:
Oliver, are you able to see the first email in the thread?
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:40 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Imho, it would be helpful to have a link to the amended proposal,
rather
than having to wade through previous discussion. Possible to upload and send such a link? (Or maybe that has already happened and I just can't find the link? In which case sorry for not finding it - please still send it to this list.)
On 17-May-17 20:33, Milos Rancic wrote:
We should start finishing this issue. May all of you check the previous discussion and say if you agree in general with the proposal amended by MF-Warburg? If so, I would make the next draft.
On Sun, Feb 12, 2017 at 12:52 PM, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg <
mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
wrote: >> >> 1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for >> Wikimedia >> projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no >> significant issues in relation to the language itself, the
population
>> of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In
this
>> case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible. > > This is already what we are doing. But if such a case should turn
out
> to > be > contentious, we would discuss it even after someone marked it as > eligible > without discussion. At least that would have been my expectation. So > if > we > want to make such a detailed policy, could we please add that as
well?
Agreed.
>> 1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will
be
>> approved without them. > > What does this mean exactly?
Yes, it could be described more in detail. I thought that we can't vote about approving a new Wikipedia if they didn't translate 500 MediaWiki messages and similar. I was too lazy to take a look into
the
exact conditions for approval. In other words, we could discuss about the activity, but we can't discuss to approve the project if it's not written in particular language. And similar.
> Ok, this is our current issue with Lingua Franca Nova and Ancient > Greek. > Shouldn't we better discuss about the underlying policy regarding > constructed and ancient languages? A general rule seems better than > the > possibility to allow everything by a majority vote.
Yes. But it would anyway require majority vote. What's the difference between Ancient Greek and Sumerian? Would we allow Wikipedia in Sumerian? Classical Hebrew? ...
>> 2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but >> valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.) > > I don't recall that we ever discussed allowing projects with BCP47 > codes. > Again, isn't this something that should be discussed as a policy?
In general, we should discuss and (hopefully) approve usage BCP 47 formally, as well. However, it is so wide territory, that it's hard
to
make a consistent rule about it: Why should we approve qu-ec and why we shouldn't approve en-au? Why it's better to use mn-mong for Mongolian instead of mvf? ...
> The combination of 3.1 and 4.1 would be bad insofar as it allows a
2/3
> majority to introduce a new member anyway.
Yes. But that would mean that there is something really bad going on here.
> Yes, Langcom works with the principle that a proposal is approved > unless > a > member is against it, in which case the proposal dies (it is not > exactly > rejected, n'est-ce pas?). > At times I have been quite annoyed by it as well. I think however
that
> in > general it works quite well. Over the course of the years in which I > have > been a langcom member now, I sometimes thought about whether the > “governance“ could be improved. But my personal conclusion always
was:
> not > really. It wouldn't harm to formalize a rule for getting rid of a > theoretical trollish member opposing everything without a reason.
But
> apart > from that? I'm not really sure that introducing majority voting will > help > much.
Time and efforts required for arguing with only one person and having in mind that it's useless makes LangCom dysfunctional. Besides that, in few years we could have even 100 requests for eligibility per
year.
It's likely that 60-70 would be valid, but it's also likely that we would have to spend extraordinary time on discussion about 10-20 of them. Even if it's once per month, it would be stressful enough and lead us into the new period of hibernation.
Besides that, it's not about random persons here, but about people with enough professional and personal integrity. It is normal that we don't agree about everything and that we should accept if more
members
of LangCom decided to approve the project.
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
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
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 Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
Thank you very much! :)
Thanks to both of you, Milos and MF-Warburg, for providing the text.
I was simply thinking that discussing a text with comments in an online document would be much less cumbersome than doing so in an email list with stacked responses. But whatever you prefer ...
On 17-May-17 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
Thank you very much! :)
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
We could do that. MF-Warburg could put the proposal on wiki, so we could discuss and comment there, as well. (But, we'll make the final decision and final changes, if necessary, here. So, Gerard, don't worry if you prefer to talk just on list.)
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Thanks to both of you, Milos and MF-Warburg, for providing the text.
I was simply thinking that discussing a text with comments in an online document would be much less cumbersome than doing so in an email list with stacked responses. But whatever you prefer ...
On 17-May-17 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
Thank you very much! :)
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, No as far as I am concerned the conversation has soured. I prefer for us to take stock and not rush on. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 May 2017 at 23:08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
We could do that. MF-Warburg could put the proposal on wiki, so we could discuss and comment there, as well. (But, we'll make the final decision and final changes, if necessary, here. So, Gerard, don't worry if you prefer to talk just on list.)
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Thanks to both of you, Milos and MF-Warburg, for providing the text.
I was simply thinking that discussing a text with comments in an online document would be much less cumbersome than doing so in an email list
with
stacked responses. But whatever you prefer ...
On 17-May-17 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
Thank you very much! :)
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
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
Hi again,
that really makes me sad. We had really good rapport and momentum when we met in Berlin, and I would've thought that we'd be able to transfer that to our online communication. Is there still hope to mend what happened yesterday? (Now my troubles no longer seem so far away ...)
Yours for the under-represented language communities of our planet, Oliver
On 18-May-17 07:52, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, No as far as I am concerned the conversation has soured. I prefer for us to take stock and not rush on. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 May 2017 at 23:08, Milos Rancic <millosh@gmail.com mailto:millosh@gmail.com> wrote:
We could do that. MF-Warburg could put the proposal on wiki, so we could discuss and comment there, as well. (But, we'll make the final decision and final changes, if necessary, here. So, Gerard, don't worry if you prefer to talk just on list.) On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen@sil.org <mailto:oliver_stegen@sil.org>> wrote: > Thanks to both of you, Milos and MF-Warburg, for providing the text. > > I was simply thinking that discussing a text with comments in an online > document would be much less cumbersome than doing so in an email list with > stacked responses. But whatever you prefer ... > > > > On 17-May-17 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote: >> >> On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com <mailto:mfwarburg@googlemail.com>> >> wrote: >>> >>> By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which >>> includes these details. I can send it in a few hours. >> >> Thank you very much! :) >> >> _______________________________________________ >> 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> >> >> >> --- >> This email has been checked for viruses by AVG. >> http://www.avg.com > > > > _______________________________________________ > 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>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
I put my draft on < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy%3E, comments on the talk page, and reproduce it below. It shouldn't have anything new in it that wasn't already mentioned before. Feel free to edit on Meta or write your opinions here.
{{draft}}
The Language Committee, with the approval of the Board, decided to change its rules for decision-making. So far, every decision required "consensus", defined as "no objections". * Decisions of the Language Committee will continue to be made on the mailing list and the committee will continue to try to achieve consensus for them. If there has been no objection to a proposed decision one week (two weeks for policy changes?) after the proposal was made, it is so decided. * When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the question was discussed thoroughly. * A vote will last for one week (two weeks for policy changes?). A vote starts when a member sends a mail with the exact question to the list. The subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member can easily filter and notice such important mails. * The following majorities of participating members are needed for a decision to be adopted by vote: **Simple majority ***[[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_eligibility|Eligibility]] of projects in languages that have a valid ISO 639-3 code ***Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code. ***Final approval **2/3 majority ***Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the [[Language proposal policy]] and [[Closing projects policy]].
Some special provisions: * The procedures according to the [[closing projects policy]] are unchanged. * Full consensus is still required for accepting new members. Like all personal issues, they will be discussed on the non-public mailing list. * Any committee member can mark clearly eligible [[requests for new languages]] as eligible. Requirements are: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues with regard to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant. ** If a request turns out to be contentious, the commitee can remove the eligibility status again. * It is not possible to vote on approving a project which doesn't meet the [[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_final_approval|requisites for final approval]].
==Comments== :''(two weeks for policy changes?)'' Yay or nay?
:''When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the question was discussed thoroughly.'' I added this to prevent a voting is started immediately after someone says something against an idea/proposal. Because of the current system, discussions pretty much stop at that point, but under the new system, it would be good if they went on first before everyone has to take a side.
:''The subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member can easily filter and notice such important mails.'' This was requested in Berlin.
2017-05-18 9:00 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org:
Hi again,
that really makes me sad. We had really good rapport and momentum when we met in Berlin, and I would've thought that we'd be able to transfer that to our online communication. Is there still hope to mend what happened yesterday? (Now my troubles no longer seem so far away ...)
Yours for the under-represented language communities of our planet, Oliver
On 18-May-17 07:52, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, No as far as I am concerned the conversation has soured. I prefer for us to take stock and not rush on. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 May 2017 at 23:08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
We could do that. MF-Warburg could put the proposal on wiki, so we could discuss and comment there, as well. (But, we'll make the final decision and final changes, if necessary, here. So, Gerard, don't worry if you prefer to talk just on list.)
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Thanks to both of you, Milos and MF-Warburg, for providing the text.
I was simply thinking that discussing a text with comments in an online document would be much less cumbersome than doing so in an email list
with
stacked responses. But whatever you prefer ...
On 17-May-17 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com
wrote:
By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
Thank you very much! :)
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
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
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_3111046316371638656_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
Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code.'' This would be a novelty.
2017-05-19 0:33 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
I put my draft on https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/ Voting_policy, comments on the talk page, and reproduce it below. It shouldn't have anything new in it that wasn't already mentioned before. Feel free to edit on Meta or write your opinions here.
{{draft}}
The Language Committee, with the approval of the Board, decided to change its rules for decision-making. So far, every decision required "consensus", defined as "no objections".
- Decisions of the Language Committee will continue to be made on the
mailing list and the committee will continue to try to achieve consensus for them. If there has been no objection to a proposed decision one week (two weeks for policy changes?) after the proposal was made, it is so decided.
- When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call
for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the question was discussed thoroughly.
- A vote will last for one week (two weeks for policy changes?). A vote
starts when a member sends a mail with the exact question to the list. The subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member can easily filter and notice such important mails.
- The following majorities of participating members are needed for a
decision to be adopted by vote: **Simple majority ***[[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_eligibility|Eligibility]] of projects in languages that have a valid ISO 639-3 code ***Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code. ***Final approval **2/3 majority ***Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the [[Language proposal policy]] and [[Closing projects policy]].
Some special provisions:
- The procedures according to the [[closing projects policy]] are
unchanged.
- Full consensus is still required for accepting new members. Like all
personal issues, they will be discussed on the non-public mailing list.
- Any committee member can mark clearly eligible [[requests for new
languages]] as eligible. Requirements are: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues with regard to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant. ** If a request turns out to be contentious, the commitee can remove the eligibility status again.
- It is not possible to vote on approving a project which doesn't meet the
[[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_final_approval|requisites for final approval]].
==Comments== :''(two weeks for policy changes?)'' Yay or nay?
:''When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the question was discussed thoroughly.'' I added this to prevent a voting is started immediately after someone says something against an idea/proposal. Because of the current system, discussions pretty much stop at that point, but under the new system, it would be good if they went on first before everyone has to take a side.
:''The subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member can easily filter and notice such important mails.'' This was requested in Berlin.
2017-05-18 9:00 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org:
Hi again,
that really makes me sad. We had really good rapport and momentum when we met in Berlin, and I would've thought that we'd be able to transfer that to our online communication. Is there still hope to mend what happened yesterday? (Now my troubles no longer seem so far away ...)
Yours for the under-represented language communities of our planet, Oliver
On 18-May-17 07:52, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, No as far as I am concerned the conversation has soured. I prefer for us to take stock and not rush on. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 May 2017 at 23:08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
We could do that. MF-Warburg could put the proposal on wiki, so we could discuss and comment there, as well. (But, we'll make the final decision and final changes, if necessary, here. So, Gerard, don't worry if you prefer to talk just on list.)
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Thanks to both of you, Milos and MF-Warburg, for providing the text.
I was simply thinking that discussing a text with comments in an online document would be much less cumbersome than doing so in an email list
with
stacked responses. But whatever you prefer ...
On 17-May-17 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg <
mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
wrote:
By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
Thank you very much! :)
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
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
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_-4221379748092000586_m_3111046316371638656_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
Hoi, I do not support the Notion of a simple majorette When there is no ISO639 3. I want arguments and eventualy a vote. Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com
Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code.'' This would be a novelty.
2017-05-19 0:33 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
I put my draft on < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy%3E, comments on the talk page, and reproduce it below. It shouldn't have anything new in it that wasn't already mentioned before. Feel free to edit on Meta or write your opinions here.
{{draft}}
The Language Committee, with the approval of the Board, decided to change its rules for decision-making. So far, every decision required "consensus", defined as "no objections".
- Decisions of the Language Committee will continue to be made on the
mailing list and the committee will continue to try to achieve consensus for them. If there has been no objection to a proposed decision one week (two weeks for policy changes?) after the proposal was made, it is so decided.
- When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call
for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the question was discussed thoroughly.
- A vote will last for one week (two weeks for policy changes?). A vote
starts when a member sends a mail with the exact question to the list. The subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member can easily filter and notice such important mails.
- The following majorities of participating members are needed for a
decision to be adopted by vote: **Simple majority ***[[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_eligibility|Eligibility]] of projects in languages that have a valid ISO 639-3 code ***Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code. ***Final approval **2/3 majority ***Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the [[Language proposal policy]] and [[Closing projects policy]].
Some special provisions:
- The procedures according to the [[closing projects policy]] are
unchanged.
- Full consensus is still required for accepting new members. Like all
personal issues, they will be discussed on the non-public mailing list.
- Any committee member can mark clearly eligible [[requests for new
languages]] as eligible. Requirements are: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues with regard to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant. ** If a request turns out to be contentious, the commitee can remove the eligibility status again.
- It is not possible to vote on approving a project which doesn't meet
the [[Language_proposal_policy#Requisites_for_final_approval|requisites for final approval]].
==Comments== :''(two weeks for policy changes?)'' Yay or nay?
:''When there is an objection to a proposed decision, any member may call for a vote. A vote must then be held, but it should only start after the question was discussed thoroughly.'' I added this to prevent a voting is started immediately after someone says something against an idea/proposal. Because of the current system, discussions pretty much stop at that point, but under the new system, it would be good if they went on first before everyone has to take a side.
:''The subject of all the mails must include [VOTE] so that every member can easily filter and notice such important mails.'' This was requested in Berlin.
2017-05-18 9:00 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org:
Hi again,
that really makes me sad. We had really good rapport and momentum when we met in Berlin, and I would've thought that we'd be able to transfer that to our online communication. Is there still hope to mend what happened yesterday? (Now my troubles no longer seem so far away ...)
Yours for the under-represented language communities of our planet, Oliver
On 18-May-17 07:52, Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, No as far as I am concerned the conversation has soured. I prefer for us to take stock and not rush on. Thanks, GerardM
On 17 May 2017 at 23:08, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
We could do that. MF-Warburg could put the proposal on wiki, so we could discuss and comment there, as well. (But, we'll make the final decision and final changes, if necessary, here. So, Gerard, don't worry if you prefer to talk just on list.)
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 11:00 PM, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
Thanks to both of you, Milos and MF-Warburg, for providing the text.
I was simply thinking that discussing a text with comments in an
online
document would be much less cumbersome than doing so in an email list
with
stacked responses. But whatever you prefer ...
On 17-May-17 22:54, Milos Rancic wrote:
On Wed, May 17, 2017 at 10:52 PM, MF-Warburg <
mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
wrote: > > By the way, I created a draft for a policy on "calling votes", which > includes these details. I can send it in a few hours.
Thank you very much! :)
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
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
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_8551162725572074259_m_-4221379748092000586_m_3111046316371638656_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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
I agree with Gerard. A primary code in BPC 47 would be a rarity, and not something to be adopted here without a proper vote.
Michael Everson
On 19 May 2017, at 01:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I do not support the Notion of a simple majority When there is no ISO639 3. I want arguments and eventualy a vote. Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code.'' This would be a novelty.
The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be decided by a (simple majority) vote. Or do I misunderstand the objection?
2017-05-19 3:32 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
I agree with Gerard. A primary code in BPC 47 would be a rarity, and not something to be adopted here without a proper vote.
Michael Everson
On 19 May 2017, at 01:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I do not support the Notion of a simple majority When there is no ISO639
- I want arguments and eventualy a vote.
Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a
valid BCP 47 code.''
This would be a novelty.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, Yes you do. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 June 2017 at 04:42, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be decided by a (simple majority) vote. Or do I misunderstand the objection?
2017-05-19 3:32 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
I agree with Gerard. A primary code in BPC 47 would be a rarity, and not something to be adopted here without a proper vote.
Michael Everson
On 19 May 2017, at 01:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I do not support the Notion of a simple majority When there is no
ISO639 3. I want arguments and eventualy a vote.
Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg <mfwarburg@googlemail.com
Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a
valid BCP 47 code.''
This would be a novelty.
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
Then explain it.
2017-06-13 7:15 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Yes you do. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 June 2017 at 04:42, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be decided by a (simple majority) vote. Or do I misunderstand the objection?
2017-05-19 3:32 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
I agree with Gerard. A primary code in BPC 47 would be a rarity, and not something to be adopted here without a proper vote.
Michael Everson
On 19 May 2017, at 01:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I do not support the Notion of a simple majority When there is no
ISO639 3. I want arguments and eventualy a vote.
Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg <
mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with
a valid BCP 47 code.''
This would be a novelty.
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Hoi, First there is no agreement.
Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living languages there is no need for a vote. Third, for other ISO-639-3 languages there is a need for a vote. Compelling arguments are needed and a two third majority is reasonable. Fourth for codes that do not have an ISO-639-3 code the standard answer is no. Without proper arguments this should not happen. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 June 2017 at 07:19, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Then explain it.
2017-06-13 7:15 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Yes you do. Thanks, GerardM
On 13 June 2017 at 04:42, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be decided by a (simple majority) vote. Or do I misunderstand the objection?
2017-05-19 3:32 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
I agree with Gerard. A primary code in BPC 47 would be a rarity, and not something to be adopted here without a proper vote.
Michael Everson
On 19 May 2017, at 01:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I do not support the Notion of a simple majority When there is no
ISO639 3. I want arguments and eventualy a vote.
Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg <
mfwarburg@googlemail.com>
Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with
a valid BCP 47 code.''
This would be a novelty.
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
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 13 Jun 2017, at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First there is no agreement.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living languages there is no need for a vote.
That’s our rules, yes.
Third, for other ISO-639-3 languages there is a need for a vote.
I suppose there are living languages with few if any users and other languages with potentially very many.
Compelling arguments are needed and a two third majority is reasonable.
What does everyone feel about this?
Fourth for codes that do not have an ISO-639-3 code the standard answer is no. Without proper arguments this should not happen.
And this is the BPC 47 thing. That’s a very important and widely-implemented standard. If the 639 Agency had refused Elfdalian, we would have created a primary tag for it. That would be a situation where a non-standard answer might be useful.
Michael
Are there further comments about this? I'd invite those of you who want to change parts of the policy to edit < https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy%3E directly to address your concerns.
2017-06-13 19:20 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
On 13 Jun 2017, at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First there is no agreement.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living languages there is no
need for a vote.
That’s our rules, yes.
Third, for other ISO-639-3 languages there is a need for a vote.
I suppose there are living languages with few if any users and other languages with potentially very many.
Compelling arguments are needed and a two third majority is reasonable.
What does everyone feel about this?
Fourth for codes that do not have an ISO-639-3 code the standard answer
is no. Without proper arguments this should not happen.
And this is the BPC 47 thing. That’s a very important and widely-implemented standard. If the 639 Agency had refused Elfdalian, we would have created a primary tag for it. That would be a situation where a non-standard answer might be useful.
Michael _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
+1
Thanks, MF, for working Gerard's comments into the new policy draft so sensibly and sensitively! No further comments or changes from my side - I'd be happy to approve those new rules.
Oliver
On 04-Jul-17 13:31, MF-Warburg wrote:
Are there further comments about this? I'd invite those of you who want to change parts of the policy to edit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy directly to address your concerns.
2017-06-13 19:20 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson <everson@evertype.com mailto:everson@evertype.com>:
On 13 Jun 2017, at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com <mailto:gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>> wrote: > Hoi, > First there is no agreement. Not sure what you are talking about. > Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living languages there is no need for a vote. That’s our rules, yes. > Third, for other ISO-639-3 languages there is a need for a vote. I suppose there are living languages with few if any users and other languages with potentially very many. > Compelling arguments are needed and a two third majority is reasonable. What does everyone feel about this? > Fourth for codes that do not have an ISO-639-3 code the standard answer is no. Without proper arguments this should not happen. And this is the BPC 47 thing. That’s a very important and widely-implemented standard. If the 639 Agency had refused Elfdalian, we would have created a primary tag for it. That would be a situation where a non-standard answer might be useful. Michael _______________________________________________ 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
Thank you MF. I really like the policy.
Regards Satdeep Gill
Strategy Coordinator, Wikimedia Foundation https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Strategy/Wikimedia_movement/2017/Track_B#SGill_.28WMF.29 Co-founder, Punjabi Wikimedians https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Punjabi_Wikimedians Treasurer, Affiliations Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Affiliations_Committee Member, Language Committee https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee
On 4 July 2017 at 17:34, Oliver Stegen oliver_stegen@sil.org wrote:
+1
Thanks, MF, for working Gerard's comments into the new policy draft so sensibly and sensitively! No further comments or changes from my side - I'd be happy to approve those new rules.
Oliver
On 04-Jul-17 13:31, MF-Warburg wrote:
Are there further comments about this? I'd invite those of you who want to change parts of the policy to edit https://meta.wikimedia.org/ wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy directly to address your concerns.
2017-06-13 19:20 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com:
On 13 Jun 2017, at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First there is no agreement.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living languages there is no
need for a vote.
That’s our rules, yes.
Third, for other ISO-639-3 languages there is a need for a vote.
I suppose there are living languages with few if any users and other languages with potentially very many.
Compelling arguments are needed and a two third majority is reasonable.
What does everyone feel about this?
Fourth for codes that do not have an ISO-639-3 code the standard answer
is no. Without proper arguments this should not happen.
And this is the BPC 47 thing. That’s a very important and widely-implemented standard. If the 639 Agency had refused Elfdalian, we would have created a primary tag for it. That would be a situation where a non-standard answer might be useful.
Michael _______________________________________________ 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_-2186749785136521154_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
I do not have time to go and edit the voting policy right now. Please take my concerns into account.
On 4 Jul 2017, at 12:31, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
Are there further comments about this? I'd invite those of you who want to change parts of the policy to edit https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy directly to address your concerns.
2017-06-13 19:20 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com: On 13 Jun 2017, at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, First there is no agreement.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living languages there is no need for a vote.
That’s our rules, yes.
Third, for other ISO-639-3 languages there is a need for a vote.
I suppose there are living languages with few if any users and other languages with potentially very many.
Compelling arguments are needed and a two third majority is reasonable.
What does everyone feel about this?
Fourth for codes that do not have an ISO-639-3 code the standard answer is no. Without proper arguments this should not happen.
And this is the BPC 47 thing. That’s a very important and widely-implemented standard. If the 639 Agency had refused Elfdalian, we would have created a primary tag for it. That would be a situation where a non-standard answer might be useful.
Michael _______________________________________________ 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
Simple majority without serious discussion is not sufficient for a BPC primary code. Such codes would be unusual, and we should be in agreement about it because unusual is something one should be careful about.
On 13 Jun 2017, at 03:42, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be decided by a (simple majority) vote. Or do I misunderstand the objection?
2017-05-19 3:32 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com: I agree with Gerard. A primary code in BPC 47 would be a rarity, and not something to be adopted here without a proper vote.
Michael Everson
On 19 May 2017, at 01:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I do not support the Notion of a simple majority When there is no ISO639 3. I want arguments and eventualy a vote. Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code.'' This would be a novelty.
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
Oliver, inside of my first email today, starting with "We should start finishing this issue..." you can find my quoted response to MF-Warburg. That's the most relevant part. Gerard has sent an email, too, but I think it's outdated now and it's likely that he could contribute to this discussion again.
Hoi, In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a two third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having them and we should try to prevent them as they are often more of a political than linguistic reality. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote:
One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
- No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
- Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
- 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
- Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Gerard,
We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags.
Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble.
On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a two third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having them and we should try to prevent them as they are often more of a political than linguistic reality. Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote: One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
- No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
- Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
- 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
- Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
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
Hoi, yes and we reached consensus about the ones we use. There is a concern and having a two third majority should be no problem. We do have ISO 639-3 macro languages, they should be avoided. Thanks, GerardM
On 4 July 2017 at 20:19, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
Gerard,
We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags.
Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble.
On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a
two third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having them and we should try to prevent them as they are often more of a political than linguistic reality.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote: One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
- No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
- Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
- 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
- Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Changed the draft wrt macro languages and BCP: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=16968705&oldid=16781951
2017-07-04 20:27 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, yes and we reached consensus about the ones we use. There is a concern and having a two third majority should be no problem. We do have ISO 639-3 macro languages, they should be avoided. Thanks, GerardM
On 4 July 2017 at 20:19, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
Gerard,
We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags.
Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble.
On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a
two third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having them and we should try to prevent them as they are often more of a political than linguistic reality.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote: One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
- No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
- Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
- 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
- Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
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
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
Since there were no further comments, I have marked the voting policy as an adopted policy now. Let's vote away!
2017-07-06 17:28 GMT+02:00 MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com:
Changed the draft wrt macro languages and BCP: https://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?diff=16968705&oldid=16781951
2017-07-04 20:27 GMT+02:00 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, yes and we reached consensus about the ones we use. There is a concern and having a two third majority should be no problem. We do have ISO 639-3 macro languages, they should be avoided. Thanks, GerardM
On 4 July 2017 at 20:19, Michael Everson everson@evertype.com wrote:
Gerard,
We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags.
Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble.
On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a
two third majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having them and we should try to prevent them as they are often more of a political than linguistic reality.
Thanks, GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com wrote: One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or you want any addition.
- No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be approved without them.
- Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers "macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
- 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing projects policy [1].
- Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by any of the current committee member.
[1] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
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
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