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@gmail.com wrote:
On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 12:06 PM, Muhammad Alsebaey shipmaster@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@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l