Hoi,
As indicated earlier, the "Lebanese" request proves that the ISO-639-3
standard is not followed blindly when giving the eligible status to a
project.
The language committee is restricted in what it can share publicly.
Consequently not everything can be scrutinised by people who want to know
and see everything. As I indicated earlier, the request for Egyptian Arabic
was given extra attention.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:22 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Muhammad Alsebaey
<shipmaster(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Then if as you claim you have considered all the
issues I have raised
before
you made the decision there is a big issue in
transparency, as I have
read
through the approved proposals trying to find any
supporting arguments
other than the ISO code thing and didnt find any, if such arguments were
available, why arent they made public? that would save a person like me
such
a discussion.
Gerard, while I think that Masri (and other Arabic languages) should
get their Wikimedian projects, blindly following ISO codes leads to
very reasonable questions, like this one is. (I had to make a point
here :) )
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l