...that is neither here nor there. You're sidestepping the discussion at hand yet again to say the same thing you've said in countless other messages.
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, It is possible to request a code for a revived extinct language. The argument in favour of such a code is likely to be adopted by the organisations that issue the relevant codes. "Ancient" languages cannot start a project because by definition expressions in that language are exclusively in the past.
There have been those that say that you can express modern language with old terminology. I have asked specialists about this notion and they reject this. When you want to learn Ancient Greek you learn the grammar by exercise and write new text, you create problems in understanding the vocabulary that is part of the language when studying modern text. The WMF is about learning, when a project is known to be flawed from its inception, when there are methods to make the distinction between the modern and the original usage clear, it is unconscionable to accept languages under the code defining the language as ancient or extinct when there is a clear route of making this difference clear.
When community decision means that this strategy is not explored because of a wish not to do this, the community is not listening to arguments and hence there is no wish to seek a consensus.
It is not really important if everybody agrees on a policy. I do not happy with the way the policy is currently explained. However, I am extremely happy with the policy as it means that we do not have to argue all the time. Changing the policy in a way that makes it less predictable and observable would quickly make the policy largely irrelevant and it would rapidly degenerate both the policy and the committee into a dysfunctional state. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
I agree that community consensus on the policy should override committee consensus. However, there was no community consensus; we had a dozen or two people voicing conflicting opinions and proposals about whether to keep, remove, or replace that clause in the policy. Where there is a complete lack of community direction on that clause, I think it's within the committee's purpose to maintain the current policy.
Absolutely, assuming that the policy was properly adopted in the first place. Keeping and removing are clear options, but each proposal to replace needs to be viewed as a separate option. It's not enough to say that we need to replace something without saying what we want to replace it with. If the replacers have a conflicting variety of proposals let them work out an agreement among themselves. In parliamentary procedure this is what the sub-amendment process does. Only after the sub-amendments have been sorted out does the amendment come up for adoption.
If we were to strike out policy for which there is no community consensus, the result would be the same because we'd be forced to stop processing ancient languages until we had a policy under which to do so. However, I think holding requests in limbo indefinitely is a bad practice.
The first expression here seems ambiguous as to whether the original policy had no consensus or the striking out had no consensus. If there is no policy the processing of each affected language would need to be treated as a separate issue with the full range of the usual arguments being repeated. I do agree that keeping requests in limbo is bad.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l