The important thing to recognise is that the names of languages is only one aspect of what makes the CLDR. There are many more details to the CLDR, collation for instance. This is where the WMF is not that interested in following the standard even though it recognises that the point made by the CLDR is valid. 

What both the WMF and Unicode need (CLDR is a Unicode standard), is the information that is what the CLDR is about for any and all languages. For Unicode it is vital that the standard is correct.. as correct as humanly possible. When the WMF was to collect all the information needed for all languages, when it would use it with the explicit understanding to have it flow towards Unicode's CLDR standard, there is a chance that there will be winners.

However do realise that this is hard work. You will need to improve cautiously on the existing processes and data. It will take a considerable amount of time and it can work.

On 1 March 2013 20:08, Federico Leva (Nemo) <nemowiki@gmail.com> wrote:
JP Béland, 01/03/2013 20:00:

I understand those type of organisations are responsible to establish
standards. However, if they don't provide the support we need as a
project (and I mean WMF projects), maybe we need to look at ways to
develop our own means to ''by-pass'' or ''orverride'' some of the info
we are getting from those standardisation organisations.

Just opening the thoughts...

No, just ask our CLDR contacts (Amir and Santhosh, maybe someone else too) to use Wikimedia's vote as you think needed for Wikimedia.
It's possible that you're not using the most correct process (CLDR is not super-easy): bugs are easier but less formal, they're very nice and helpful but if it gets controversial it may not be handled in the most formal way which includes "voting".


Languages mailing list