Do you have a set time limit for people to respond in? a week? a month? and
what about the 4 inactive persons, how do you consider them inactive? what
if you had 7 inactive members out of 10 at a time and didnt know it, would
it still be a 'unanimous' decision?
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hoi,
You are wrong. If one person had objected at the time, the proposal would
not have been made eligible.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster(a)gmail.com>
Which creates the situation we are in, according
to you, all members of
the
language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issues that I
and
others raised, but since only one out of the 10+
people responded,
therefore
they must have all considered all the issues and have no comment, and the
decision is unanimous. I am not going to debate with you how this doesnt
sound very logical, It is sufficient to say you are now finding out that
there were at least 1 objecting and 4 inactive members after you declared
the decision 'unanimous'.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hoi,
As I have been saying before, the language committee works on the basis
that
if only one person objects, something does not move forward. Many
subjects
are raised on our mailing list where people are
notified that something
is
> going to be done and when nobody objects within a certain time frame,
the
proposal
is moved forward.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster(a)gmail.com>
> So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the
link
to, the
only discussion about Masry I found was:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikip…
When I raised the issue of Masry on this mailing list, raising what I
thought was valid concerns, and at the same times others were raising
such
> concerns on meta, Gerard's response was, and I quote:
>
> I have indicated that the language
> > committee was unanimous in deciding that the Egyptian Arabic
Wikipedia
> > > request was eligible.
> > >
> >
> > As indicated earlier, all members of the language
> > > committee were explicitly asked to consider the issue that you
raise.
The
> > consequence of this is that in my opinion you refuse people the
freedom
> to
> > work on a project in their language, languages that are eligible
under
> > the
> > > language policy of the WMF.
> > >
> > >
> > Per above link, I see a discussion only between two members (Gerard
and
> > Jon). I am pretty confused how did that
constitute a 'unanimous
> decision'.
> > Wouldn't that be a gross mis-characterization?
> >
> > Wouldn't refusal to point me to archived discussion *then*
> > mis-characterizing what really happened on the list be grounds for
some
>
kind
> of audit?
>
> Forgive me If I am wrong, but that is the only information I have to
work
> > on, if I am wrong, I apologize to Gerard.
> >
> > Best Regards,
> > Muhammad Alsebaey
> > _______________________________________________
> > foundation-l mailing list
> > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
> > Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
Best Regards,
Muhammad Alsebaey
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l