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(a)gmail.com>om>:
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(a)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(a)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(a)gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On Sat, Feb 11, 2017 at 6:19 PM, MF-Warburg <
mfwarburg(a)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(a)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(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom