On Mon, Jan 12, 2009 at 1:04 AM, Tomasz Ganicz <polimerek(a)gmail.com> wrote:
I did't want to come back to Belarus Wikipedia
case, but at that time
I have found quite easily 2 good experts. One from Univ. of Warsaw,
vice-head o Belaruss literature department and one from Univ of Oxford
(an emeritus professor, specializing in Belaruss politics and
history). It wasn't very difficulit to ask them and get the answers -
quite long and IMHO quite professional.I asked at that time if there
is any interst for LangComm in reading this. The answer was "no", as
at that time the decission was already taken, the situation was quite
hot and arguments showing that the decission wasn't so clever were not
listen simply by default. The stinky egg was already broken and
members of LangComm were simply trying not to smell it :-)
I don't think that such kind of experts good in one case only should
be members of LangComm. It probably doesn't make sense. But it does
make sense to find them for specific purposes and then ask questions
before making final decission. It can be done. Most of them give you
an answer or at least point you to the places you can find it itself.
LangComm should consist of the people who are clever enough to ask
relevant questions and be able to understand and analyse the asnwers.
Yes, this is a good point. As far as I am introduced, this is
LangCom's practice for a longer period of time. But, it is good to
organize those contacts.
I also agree with your point related to LangCom members profile. But,
it is also good to have in-house solution for regular issues (and we
have it now).