Hoi,
The expert is anything but anonymous. What I gave you is the reason why we
do not have a public mailing list. The arguments as they happened have been
published. There is nothing more.
You have to appreciate that for us it is also a hobby. The policy is as it
is to prevent endless bickering and to provide a predictable result. This is
what we do. When people are against on principle, there is no point in
further discussion. They are against on principle and will use any argument
to get their way.
I care for languages, I care for projects to do well. Any language. I have
no reasons to treat languages differently and the policy and the
implementation of the policy proves this. People who oppose have their
special interest at heart. They are welcome to their position but it does
not make for predictable results if we give in to all the bleeding hearts.
In the end you will only hear from people who do not get their way. The
people who are happy with the results of the policy you do not hear.
In the mean time the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia has been approved 82 days
ago. I think if there is one problem with policies like the language policy,
it is that they are not effectively supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. I
think the waiting for the creation of projects is a disgrace. This is not
specific to this project, it has been a constant struggle to get projects
created.
NB the language policy is an policy endorsed by the board.
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de> wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
It is quite simple; I asked for a comment and I got as an answer that
the Arabic languages were not different from other languages we
considered. Nobody dissented. After a week I gave the eligible status
to Egyptian Arabic and we have a precedent for the eligibility for the
Arabic languages. This is what I have reported several times already...
Thanks,
GerardM
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp(a)gmx.de
<mailto:wing.philopp@gmx.de>> wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
Transparancy exists when it is clear what has been said and
done. You do not need the exact text and you do not need to
know every detail. All relevant details have been made public.
You know that the information was truthful because otherwise I
would have been corrected.
Thanks,
Gerard
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Ting Chen
<wing.philopp(a)gmx.de <mailto:wing.philopp@gmx.de>
<mailto:wing.philopp@gmx.de <mailto:wing.philopp@gmx.de>>>
wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
Happy that you agree that we are doing a good job.
As to finding another expert, I am quite happy with the
one we
have. Your
proposal that we say something along the lines
you
indicate is not
practical. For your information, you do work also
in a
non-observable way.
Why should your work be different ?
Thanks,
Gerard
Personnally, I would vote against any decision on the board
that
cannot
be made transparent. Sorry.
Ting
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>
<mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org
<mailto:foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org>>
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I don't understand you. Sorry. Milos said you need not publish
names, just arguments that are exchanged. You answered him that
this is not possible. So, whatever decision you made, the
arguments that are exchanged inside the LangCom that ultimately
resulted in the decision cannot be published. If this is not
intransparent I don't know what is.
Ting
Well, in this case I agree with Milos, that you should have asked one
more expert. In principle you asked an anonymous expert and he made a
statement. This statement is made without argumentations and reasons.
The members of the committee accepted this statement without
argumentation and the decision is made.
Because the issue is sensible, and because there are objections inside
the community, I find the decision process described above not very
reassuring.
Ting
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l