Hoi, The policy warts and all is clearly beneficial. We are discussing a corner case, this is how to deal with reconstructed languages. One of the things that we have is time. There is time to get a code for a reconstructed language, there is no urgency.
When you say that the policy seems to be wrong, we have to talk discuss why it would be wrong. The fact that some people do not agree with the policy as is does not invalidate the policy. As Pathoschild correctly states, this is not about Ancient Greek. If it were only about Ancient Greek the proposal would remain denied. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:45 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/04/2008, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, if a wiki *doesn't* meet the requirements, it won't be approved. This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the process, it's an absolute condition. What we are discussing is not the Greek Wikipedia or any other particular case, it is the policy. If you think it is a waste of time to consult the community about changing the policy, you're welcome to ignore these emails.
Uh, an example where the policy seems to get it wrong is a perfectly reasonable case to talk about; hiding behing "but it's policy!" is hardly an appropriate response or one that will engender confidence.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l