Hoi, Hoi what is unfair is that previous project proposals had less stringent rules then the current and future project proposals. In my reply to Aphaia I said as much. What I also said was that it is not unreasonable.
I do encourage pan-project development of the localisation process. At the time when a language community asks for a new project the quality of the localisation will be assessed. It is exactly because we expect an ongoing localisation effort that this requirement should not be an issue. The problem that we face is that the localisation for most languages is often severely deficient. The relevance of this is something that is not appreciated by the users of an English user interface because they get their localisation by default. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 9:32 AM, Cormac Lawler cormaggio@gmail.com wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 7:26 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Several members of the language committee are extremely unhappy with Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord. They have indicated that they will block final approval for any project by going back on this necessary part of the policy.
Again, there are two parts to the policy.
- When a language is starting it only needs to do the most used messages
of MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language.
- When a project request is a subsequent project for a language, all
MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by the WMF are required.
Gerard, you acknowledged before that this is unfair - I agree, and, to me, it doesn't seem to make any sense. Why not allow second and subsequent projects open with the same requirements as the first and, as you said, encourage pan-project language communities to develop the localisation process as an ongoing project?
Cormac _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l