Folks, There are alternatives. For example, every case can be conducted bilingually; where at least one of the languages in is supported by (e.g.) altavista and google translators.
This would actually be better from the participants' point of view; one reason is that in some regions, English is not a second language.
H.
On 05/01/2008, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.com wrote:
On 05/01/2008, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
On 1/5/08, Brianna Laugher brianna.laugher@gmail.com wrote:
Before any meta arbcom could be formed it would definitely need a strong definition of its jurisdiction.
I just wanted to make a comment for consideration about electing people to it. I may not be the only person concerned that it would be a strong concentration of power, and therefore a magnet to those who seek power, and that the people who most should be on it may be discouraged from actually participating due to the politics it will attract.
Yet another reason why having a meta arbcom that only operates in English, would be a tragic mistake.
I agree there are plenty of things that would be bad about using English as a lingua franca, but I don't see any good alternatives. There's little point having a central body if it's segregated by language anyway.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l