Hoi, For the record the time from a proposed *final* approval to publishing the approval is at least two weeks. The fact that Japanese Wikiveristy show as *conditionally approved* is only demonstrating the fact that there are no obstacles from finally approving a project. At this stage we do not look at all at the localisation.
A good example is Sranan Tongo. They have been conditionally approved and are working hard and doing a great job on their localisation. At the time of final approval when we consider eligibility for final approval we look at the localisation for real. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 2:17 PM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Jerome Banal < jerome.banal@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly don't want to sit between you guys but just want to
highlight
something that I think I understood (but might be wrong) from Gerard's writings and that you may have missed:
It seems to me that the Greek project has been under examination before
the
change in policy that creates this new stronger requirement, whereas the Japanese has been examined after this change.
[show] Wikiversity Greek 3 Approved 10-Jan-2008 [show] Wikiversity Japanese 2 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007
And it was January 5 that GerardM told Japanese Wikiversity to localize all files.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWik...
I am afraid your chronology is anachronistic and not based on the fact.
It's not that the two projects are considered differently under the same rules, it is that they are considered with different rules because the
rules
have changed (for every project that has not been examined yet,
including
any additional Greek project that may come after that one) between the
two
requests.
Now, I might be wrong; This is not very well mentioned in Gerard's mails
but
I think it is hinted.
Not taking any position for or against that change in rule :-)
Kind regards, Jerome
2008/1/15, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com>:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I tried to point out to you personally how the policy is consistent
in
time.
I also explained why the policy is reasonable. As I have said the
same
things now several times, I do not want to repeat the things
publicly
again
unless there is a new point to clarify.
It is your wishes not mine. And if you think it is enough to persuade me to cover your inequity for all Japanese people involved into Wiversity sorry I disagree.
There is no reason to hide it in a cupboard. And I esteem
transparency.
And if there is any new point - you still haven't provide why inequity
between Greeks and Japanese justified.
Because of my respect to you I have endeavoured to word things differently and more personally. I do not
do
that
for many others. :)
- I don't have an interest to discuss with you as individual. I ask
Langcom for their opinion as Wikimedia Committee. Not you individual. Hence your wish for private conversation is irrelevant. 2. As a committee member, I rather wish you esteem the all Wikiversity people, not your preferring individuals. And as a committee member you
should do, imo.
PS my name is Gerard not Gerald :)
Sorry, it is hard for native Japanese speaker to distinguish them.
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Back to foundation-l.
Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in that
you didn't respond any of my specific questions.
I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency in GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is his standpoint?
In this context what means a privately sent mail?
In both points a reasonable public clear response in an
appropriate
manner will be appreciated.
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The policy was recently changed. All the languages that were at
that
time
approved or were in the process of being approved do not have to
comply
with
the new standard. The process of being approved starts when a
member
of
the
langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for a
project.
This
is often communicated privately with people representing the new
project.
We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for
Japanese
...
without full localisation important messages will not be
available
and
consequently when new software is introduced there will be a lot
of
uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an
exension.
They
are
extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require any
extension
messages for a first project in a language because we trust the
community to
do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these messages are
translated
in the local project.
With a second project in a language it becomes even more
important
that
the
localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for the
new
requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation. When
the
localisation is only done in the biggest project. The smaller
projects
lose
out.
I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to improve
the
localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the policy
and
the
hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things
have
already
improved quite substantially over the last few months.
Thanks, Gerard
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote: > > Hoi, > > Several members of the language committee are extremely
unhappy
with
> > Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord.
They
have
> > indicated that they will block final approval for any
project by
going
back > > on this necessary part of the policy. > > Unless one other member of Langcom gives their understanding,
I
think
> it wise not to comment to this part of your statement. > > And I take it strangely you speak without clarification as
whom
you
> are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain individual on
his
> individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom. > > Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on consensus? > > > > Again, there are two parts to the policy. > > * When a language is starting it only needs to do the most
used
messages
of > > MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language. > > * When a project request is a subsequent project for a
language,
all
> > MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by
the
WMF
are
> > required. > > [snip] > > > > It is exactly for languages that use a different script that
it
is
vital
> > that the localisation is done completely. For these
languages
there
is
no > > chance that the English word is the same or similar. > > Your argument here again become pointless. "A different
script" is
> unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric. Even if
I
assume
> you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki
default =
> latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight of > differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not
latin)
and
> Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek is
not
> English word. > > Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for your
favor
> to Greek project. > > > > MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our
information.
It
needs as > > much tender loving care as we give to our content. MediaWiki
receives a
lot > > of tender loving care from the developers. We can show our
appreciation
by > > making sure that their software is properly understood and
appreciated
by > > all its users not only for the people that know English and
get
everything > > by default. > > Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if Pathoschild
pointed
> out flows in your wording? > > > > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for
Japanese,
and
it
> > > seems that this problem is caused by a change that
happened a
few
days
> > > ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought
them
up
for
> > > subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on them,
because
it
> > > didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much
difference).
I'll
> > > keep you updated off-list. > > > > > > Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that
page)
those
> > > numbers are only there to give a general idea of the
discussion.
Since
> > > they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most
of
the
time.
> > > > > > -- > > > Yours cordially, > > > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > > > -- > KIZU Naoko > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) > Quote of the Day (English):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> > _______________________________________________ > > > > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l