Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four projects: Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya) Wiktionary. No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the fault of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language Committee, which did not do its job. Accordingly, I will approve and send to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on Monday, 19 August. I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of the following happens:
* Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be concerned about the validity of the language. * That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert immediately. * Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and identified the expert to the mail list. * Then, the expert has 7 days to respond.
Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if one of these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and we'll delete the project. But I've been watching all of these projects for the last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.
If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I have outlined above, I intend to ignore that person. Sorry, but at this point, the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to become active again and do its job.
Steven
Sent from Outlookhttp://aka.ms/weboutlook
So ignore me. But verification is part of the game.You do not threaten us and cowe us in undesired consequences. It is not for you to make these threats. GerardM
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four projects: Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya) Wiktionary. No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the fault of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language Committee, which did not do its job. Accordingly, I will approve and send to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on Monday, 19 August. I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of the following happens:
- Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be
concerned about the validity of the language.
- That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert
immediately.
- Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and
identified the expert to the mail list.
- Then, the expert has 7 days to respond.
Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if one of these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and we'll delete the project. But I've been watching all of these projects for the last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.
If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I have outlined above, I intend to ignore that person. Sorry, but at this point, the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to become active again and do its job.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook _______________________________________________ Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Thanks Steven
In my opinion, I am happy for us to assume good faith with respect to these projects. We should have a specific time period to weight in, if no one brings forwards specific concerns during this time period than creation should move forwards. If major concerns are raised down the road, it is not that hard to roll back an approval.
James P.S. Please note that this is my own opinion and not an official board position.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 06:09 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
So ignore me. But verification is part of the game.You do not threaten us and cowe us in undesired consequences. It is not for you to make these threats. GerardM
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four projects: Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya) Wiktionary. No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the fault of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language Committee, which did not do its job. Accordingly, I will approve and send to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on Monday, 19 August. I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of the following happens:
- Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be
concerned about the validity of the language.
- That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert
immediately.
- Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and
identified the expert to the mail list.
- Then, the expert has 7 days to respond.
Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if one of these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and we'll delete the project. But I've been watching all of these projects for the last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.
If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I have outlined above, I intend to ignore that person. Sorry, but at this point, the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to become active again and do its job.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook _______________________________________________ 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, When the language committee was formed, it was exactly good faith that proved problematic.
It has proven extremely problematic to end projects so no, that is exactly the wrong sentiment. Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 16 aug. 2019 10:41 schreef James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Thanks Steven
In my opinion, I am happy for us to assume good faith with respect to these projects. We should have a specific time period to weight in, if no one brings forwards specific concerns during this time period than creation should move forwards. If major concerns are raised down the road, it is not that hard to roll back an approval.
James P.S. Please note that this is my own opinion and not an official board position.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 06:09 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
So ignore me. But verification is part of the game.You do not threaten us and cowe us in undesired consequences. It is not for you to make these threats. GerardM
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four projects: Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya) Wiktionary. No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the fault of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language Committee, which did not do its job. Accordingly, I will approve and send to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on Monday, 19 August. I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of the following happens:
- Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be
concerned about the validity of the language.
- That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert
immediately.
- Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and
identified the expert to the mail list.
- Then, the expert has 7 days to respond.
Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if one of these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and we'll delete the project. But I've been watching all of these projects for the last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.
If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I have outlined above, I intend to ignore that person. Sorry, but at this point, the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to become active again and do its job.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook _______________________________________________ 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
Do we have other suggestions for how to solve the problem of proposed projects being in limbo for unreasonable periods of time?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 11:16 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When the language committee was formed, it was exactly good faith that proved problematic.
It has proven extremely problematic to end projects so no, that is exactly the wrong sentiment. Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 16 aug. 2019 10:41 schreef James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Thanks Steven
In my opinion, I am happy for us to assume good faith with respect to these projects. We should have a specific time period to weight in, if no one brings forwards specific concerns during this time period than creation should move forwards. If major concerns are raised down the road, it is not that hard to roll back an approval.
James P.S. Please note that this is my own opinion and not an official board position.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 06:09 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
So ignore me. But verification is part of the game.You do not threaten us and cowe us in undesired consequences. It is not for you to make these threats. GerardM
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four projects: Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya) Wiktionary. No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the fault of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language Committee, which did not do its job. Accordingly, I will approve and send to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on Monday, 19 August. I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of the following happens:
- Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be
concerned about the validity of the language.
- That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert
immediately.
- Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and
identified the expert to the mail list.
- Then, the expert has 7 days to respond.
Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if one of these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and we'll delete the project. But I've been watching all of these projects for the last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.
If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I have outlined above, I intend to ignore that person. Sorry, but at this point, the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to become active again and do its job.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook _______________________________________________ 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
Hoi, Define unreasonable. Amir gave an estimation when it is reasonable to expect a result. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, 16 Aug 2019 at 11:19, James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com wrote:
Do we have other suggestions for how to solve the problem of proposed projects being in limbo for unreasonable periods of time?
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 11:16 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, When the language committee was formed, it was exactly good faith that proved problematic.
It has proven extremely problematic to end projects so no, that is exactly the wrong sentiment. Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 16 aug. 2019 10:41 schreef James Heilman jmh649@gmail.com:
Thanks Steven
In my opinion, I am happy for us to assume good faith with respect to these projects. We should have a specific time period to weight in, if no one brings forwards specific concerns during this time period than creation should move forwards. If major concerns are raised down the road, it is not that hard to roll back an approval.
James P.S. Please note that this is my own opinion and not an official board position.
On Fri, Aug 16, 2019, 06:09 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
So ignore me. But verification is part of the game.You do not threaten us and cowe us in undesired consequences. It is not for you to make these threats. GerardM
On Thu, 15 Aug 2019 at 23:35, Steven White Koala19890@hotmail.com wrote:
Now that things are starting to move again, I intend to approve four projects: Guiane Creole WP, Saraiki WP, Mon WP and Tacawit (Shawiya) Wiktionary. No, none of these has been verified. But this is not the fault of the people who created the projects, this is the fault of the Language Committee, which did not do its job. Accordingly, I will approve and send to phabricator for creation all four of these projects by 17:00 UTC on Monday, 19 August. I will not do that in a particular case only if ALL of the following happens:
- Someone objects in a particular case that they have reason to be
concerned about the validity of the language.
- That person also specifically commits to contacting an expert
immediately.
- Then, within 48 hours, that person has contacted the expert, and
identified the expert to the mail list.
- Then, the expert has 7 days to respond.
Otherwise, I need to fall back on "Assume Good Faith". And look, if one of these turns out to be another Siberian, we'll be embarrassed, and we'll delete the project. But I've been watching all of these projects for the last two years, and I don't have any reason to believe there is a problem.
If anyone tries to object in any way other than the specific way I have outlined above, I intend to ignore that person. Sorry, but at this point, the Committee only has the right to intervene if it intends to become active again and do its job.
Steven
Sent from Outlook http://aka.ms/weboutlook _______________________________________________ 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
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom