2011/6/25 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
On 06/25/2011 11:20 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this
advice
to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the
committee
disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a one-person-call). Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee
has
a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about
whether
or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?
The answer to the last question is simple: Nobody else bothered to normalize the situation and Robin took initiative. (Besides that, all of the issues were described inside of the LangCom report from the meeting in Berlin, so you could object before. And it was not posted at the regional court on Alpha Centaur, but on this list, as well.)
As you may remember, the report was very long, and even though I speeded through it, I did not notice it since I wouldn't ever expect it there :) The fact you published it before doesnt make arguments less valid though.
I do agree we need some procedure, I am just not sure this is the right one.
Just to be super clear: the board approved this procedure explicitely in a vote? (I can't find the resolution yet on foundationwiki)
Lodewijk