Which creates the situation we are in, according to you, all members of the
language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issues that I and
others raised, but since only one out of the 10+ people responded, therefore
they must have all considered all the issues and have no comment, and the
decision is unanimous. I am not going to debate with you how this doesnt
sound very logical, It is sufficient to say you are now finding out that
there were at least 1 objecting and 4 inactive members after you declared
the decision 'unanimous'.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:
Hoi,
As I have been saying before, the language committee works on the basis
that
if only one person objects, something does not move forward. Many subjects
are raised on our mailing list where people are notified that something is
going to be done and when nobody objects within a certain time frame, the
proposal is moved forward.
Thanks,
GerardM
2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster(a)gmail.com>
So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey
graciously provided the link
to, the only discussion about Masry I found was:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikip…
When I raised the issue of Masry on this mailing list, raising what I
thought was valid concerns, and at the same times others were raising
such
concerns on meta, Gerard's response was, and
I quote:
I have indicated that the language
committee was unanimous in deciding that the
Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia
request was eligible.
As indicated earlier, all members of the language
> committee were explicitly asked to consider the issue that you raise.
The
consequence of this is that in my opinion you refuse people the freedom
to
work on a project in their language, languages
that are eligible under
the
language policy of the WMF.
Per above link, I see a discussion only between two members (Gerard and
Jon). I am pretty confused how did that constitute a 'unanimous
decision'.
Wouldn't that be a gross
mis-characterization?
Wouldn't refusal to point me to archived discussion *then*
mis-characterizing what really happened on the list be grounds for some
kind
of audit?
Forgive me If I am wrong, but that is the only information I have to work
on, if I am wrong, I apologize to Gerard.
Best Regards,
Muhammad Alsebaey
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org
Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l