Jesse (Pathoschild) wrote:
There have been a lot of points raised, so I'll answer a few
generally. (All messages from committee members, including this one,
are personal messages and don't represent the committee.)
Very cool parenthetical remark there, just as an aside.
New simple-language wikis will not be created under
policy, simply because the policy does not have objective criteria
that would allow them. Do we allow any simple wikis, like a "simple
Cherokee" Wikipedia? If not, what objective criteria distinguish
deserving from non-deserving languages? If so, should we also permit
scientific-language wikis, and any other arbitrary variant
contributors may legitimately propose? If not, what criteria
distinguish deserving from non-deserving variants?
I think this is a conundrum, and I tried to offer a shortcut
way of proceeding with non-English simples, without
thinking about the criteria at all, by just dumping them
all into incubator, and following the criteria of viable
community size/activity criteria or what have you - I frankly
have no idea what they are at all, but I am betting they are
getting viable project results, or you would be adjusting
them - and hatching them when they meet the criteria.
Don't see why you couldn't have a go at letting non-
simples from at least a few of the largest languages have
a test at creating a viable community of editors in a simple
variant of their language.
I know as a fact that even such a minor language as Finnish,
does have many many books in any decent public library
worthy of the name (studying as I am Library and information
sciences - and paddling very hard below the surface for my
"craftsmanship work") here would have a respectable
number of books written both in large print, and in simplified
form (not always intersecting). But I confess that may be an
artifact of being a citizen of one of the nations with the highest
literacy rates on record.
There are two ways to create new simple-language
wikis. The first,
most obvious but most difficult, is to formulate those criteria so
that the policy can be changed to allow them. The second is to
circumvent the policy, by convincing the Board to accept such a
proposal directly. (The second may be possible, but would be very
unfair to contributors who want a simple non-English wiki, which won't
have the same amount of popular support to sway the Board.)
I frankly don't understand what would be "very unfair" to
let larger language projects with more weight behind them,
be the ones to do the hard lifting to actually establish the fact
gosh-darn it, English is *not* the only simple that can be viable.
Baby steps, baby steps. Get a beach head first, and soon you
can haul in smaller languages.
The language committee itself was created by Board
approval, and can
be dismantled or have its membership changed by Board approval.
Without a language subcommittee, requests would need to be processed
by the Board or the sysadmins directly. More likely, the membership
would be changed in case of problems. I think the language committee
does more good than ill, but persons who disagree can certainly gather
together and propose a change.
Or of course, people on the committee can grow themselves
noses, ears, and other senses, and observe the environment