I am afraid I am lost in this thread, and in particularly in this "multilingual vs monolingual (one lingua franca) dispute.
That if a working team should be multilingual or not depends on its purpose highly: what they would like to solve, whom they would like to involve or interact etc. And also there is always a possibility to ask for help of the people not directly involved. Like we are doing on OTRS, some committees etc.
Both directions have their merits and demerits. Personally I prefer to enforce multilingualism but it requires us more workload, more effort and sometimes certain degree of ambiguity and potential misrepresentation as well as that a monolingual direction may bring. As for the body discussed their working language, their official language (i.e. the language(s) in which they state officially) and the language they may accept / can communicate to interested parties in each cases may vary. And it is the purpose and intention that determined what is the ideal set for the proposed body. People who support a given direction is accountable why the set they prefer is the best available one regarding to the issues with which they will solve and issues they should leave or not completely take care.
I am afraid I missed this kind of argument. While I have a great interest to enhance the multilingualism on the Wikimedia project both content-based activity and organizational one, for this issue, currently I would like to stay abstain.
On Jan 6, 2008 3:53 AM, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Imho, if you want something not to succeed, there is a very easy way: pinn yourself down on the details. The details will follow from the big lines, and if there are no big lines yet, it is not veyr useful to start with the details. And the "mere" was compared with the main question imho, at which I hear nothing almost, what exactly the purpose would be.
BR, lodewijk
2008/1/5, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com:
On 05/01/2008, effe iets anders effeietsanders@gmail.com wrote:
Guys, please,
The language is just a mere practical matter. Please let's first come to the conclusion what the *purpose* would be of this meta-arbcom *before* we even start with discussing issues like this. i know it is very easy to get into details, but let's remain focussed. Does anyone have a good proposal for which topics the arbcom should be used and what type of members we would need?
It's a practical matter, but I don't think it's a "mere" one. It is a very important issue that needs to be resolved. What kind of cases the committee will consider is also an important issue, but there's no reason we can't discuss them both.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l