The subcommittee does not make exceptions to the policy, so discussion should focus on the policy rather than on exempting particular requests.
I keep hearing about this committee and its rules, and I keep liking it less and less. Who was it behind originally appointing a small group tasked with the job of deciding if a language was worthy of a project? As long as people are willing to get it started, what does it hurt allowing it to go forward? If the project stagnates, then you close it.
Hosting a tiny wiki is negligible in terms of server resources, so it's not even like it's a waste of space. However, what /is/ a waste is the dozens and dozens of e-mails I get on the subject, trying to debate minute details of Ancient Greek to decide if it fits the policy to the letter.
If it's this hard to get a project off the ground, then the system is flawed.
-Chad
On Wed, Apr 16, 2008 at 11:49 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Hello Crazy Lover,
The lack of an ISO 639 code for modern usage of Ancient Greek is only one argument, and not necessarily one I put much weight on. The policy requires that a language have living native communities to read the wiki, and that is my personal position as well. There has been a lot of discussion on this list about this requirement recently, but no consensus on any change to it and no similarly objective workable alternatives.
The subcommittee does not make exceptions to the policy, so discussion should focus on the policy rather than on exempting particular requests.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l