Hoi, We have been working on a procedure for the closure of projects for some time. The reason for this is that the language committee has been asked to do this for several projects. It is not something we liked to do as it will not gain us any popularity. However, we hope that having a proper procedure will help us all.
Key points:
- Language committee deals primarily with language issues. - The process will take at least a month, this should allow for a resolution of the issue in the meantime without getting any official involvement - We define a need for a "Meta Arbitration Committee", we have not defined it as such - When it is within the remit of the language committee to decide for the end of a project, it will be possible to appeal a decision by the "Meta Arbitration Committee" - When it is accepted that a project is to end, there will be a proposal to the board for consideration - Requesting the end of a project is not a zero sum game, it can go the other way and result in sanctions against the person, group, project requesting it
Thanks, GerardM
PS In the ideas of the Language committee the Kanuri language would go to the Incubator.
GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
Hoi, We have been working on a procedure for the closure of projects for some time. The reason for this is that the language committee has been asked to do this for several projects. It is not something we liked to do as it will not gain us any popularity. However, we hope that having a proper procedure will help us all.
[...]
Thanks, such an initiative is clearly needed! Is there a public draft?
PS In the ideas of the Language committee the Kanuri language would go to the Incubator.
Since the Kanuri Wikipedia (kr.wikipedia.org) has /no content at all/ (there is nothing in article space, save for the main page, which is English only), I still wonder, what exactly should go to the incubator...
Thanks,
Johannes
Hoi, Yes, I posted it on Meta. As to Kanuri, indeed there is not much. When this page is brought to the Incubator, it will either be dormant or it will see a revival. When it fits the requirements of a full project, it will go back life again.
Thanks, GerardM
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closure_of_WMF_projects
On 4/30/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com writes:
Hoi, We have been working on a procedure for the closure of projects for some time. The reason for this is that the language committee has been asked
to
do this for several projects. It is not something we liked to do as it
will
not gain us any popularity. However, we hope that having a proper
procedure
will help us all.
[...]
Thanks, such an initiative is clearly needed! Is there a public draft?
PS In the ideas of the Language committee the Kanuri language would go to the Incubator.
Since the Kanuri Wikipedia (kr.wikipedia.org) has /no content at all/ (there is nothing in article space, save for the main page, which is English only), I still wonder, what exactly should go to the incubator...
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
That's a good reason for not moving anything to the incubator.
I think there are two options left: -Just lock the database (maybe with some instructions for a possible Kanuri speaking passer-by) -Delete the database
I would prefer the first option, because the language exists.
Greetings,
Jcb
From: "Johannes Rohr" jorohr@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal for a procedure for the closure ofprojects
Since the Kanuri Wikipedia (kr.wikipedia.org) has /no content at all/ (there is nothing in article space, save for the main page, which is English only), I still wonder, what exactly should go to the incubator...
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 5/1/07, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
That's a good reason for not moving anything to the incubator.
I think there are two options left: -Just lock the database (maybe with some instructions for a possible Kanuri speaking passer-by) -Delete the database
I would prefer the first option, because the language exists.
Seconded. As for Kanuri, I have found no good reason to move it to the Incubator. I have no idea which sense it makes to move its main page (it is quite similar with other dormant projects) to the Incubator, unless the Langcom would like to collect all dormant language projects once to it and lock the database. (There are several projects - at least over 50 - whose sole content is Main Page).
From: "Johannes Rohr" jorohr@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal for a procedure for the closure ofprojects
Since the Kanuri Wikipedia (kr.wikipedia.org) has /no content at all/ (there is nothing in article space, save for the main page, which is English only), I still wonder, what exactly should go to the incubator...
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Thirded (if that is a word). There really is nothing to move, a database lock seems like the best idea.
Casey Brown Cbrown1023
-----Original Message----- From: foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:foundation-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of Aphaia Sent: Monday, April 30, 2007 5:37 PM To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal for a procedure for the closureofprojects
On 5/1/07, Johan Bos skatinghacker@hotmail.com wrote:
That's a good reason for not moving anything to the incubator.
I think there are two options left: -Just lock the database (maybe with some instructions for a possible
Kanuri
speaking passer-by) -Delete the database
I would prefer the first option, because the language exists.
Seconded. As for Kanuri, I have found no good reason to move it to the Incubator. I have no idea which sense it makes to move its main page (it is quite similar with other dormant projects) to the Incubator, unless the Langcom would like to collect all dormant language projects once to it and lock the database. (There are several projects - at least over 50 - whose sole content is Main Page).
From: "Johannes Rohr" jorohr@gmail.com Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Proposal for a procedure for the closure ofprojects
Since the Kanuri Wikipedia (kr.wikipedia.org) has /no content at all/ (there is nothing in article space, save for the main page, which is English only), I still wonder, what exactly should go to the incubator...
Thanks,
Johannes
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
"Johan Bos" skatinghacker@hotmail.com writes:
That's a good reason for not moving anything to the incubator.
I think there are two options left: -Just lock the database (maybe with some instructions for a possible Kanuri speaking passer-by) -Delete the database
I would prefer the first option, because the language exists.
If the database is locked, the main page should contain instructions for potential contributors, telling them where to turn in case they would like to work on this wikipedia edition. This poses the question: What should they do? Whom should they contact? ATM I don't see a standard procedure for such cases.
On a side issue, keeping dormant projects without any viable content introduces a situation where you have two classes of languages: One for which projects do exist because they were summarly created together with hundreds of others at some point in the past and a second one where proponents have to go through the long, painful and often discouraging process introduced by the new policy. (when, heck, will kab.wikipedia.org finally go online?)
Thanks,
Johannes
On 4/30/07, Johannes Rohr jorohr@gmail.com wrote:
(when, heck, will kab.wikipedia.org finally go online?)
Thanks,
Johannes
When the developers make it so; there is an open ticket filed for it and various root-access developers are regularly poked. It would be nice if we had a developer dedicated to wiki creation, as we do for localization. http://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=9699
Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
I support this, but there must be clear requirements and restrictions for closing projects. For example, although it has been controversial, I do not think the policy should allow for closing the ru-sib.wp because of its size and its community.
Mark
On 30/04/07, GerardM gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, We have been working on a procedure for the closure of projects for some time. The reason for this is that the language committee has been asked to do this for several projects. It is not something we liked to do as it will not gain us any popularity. However, we hope that having a proper procedure will help us all.
Key points:
- Language committee deals primarily with language issues.
- The process will take at least a month, this should allow for a
resolution of the issue in the meantime without getting any official involvement
- We define a need for a "Meta Arbitration Committee", we have not
defined it as such
- When it is within the remit of the language committee to decide for
the end of a project, it will be possible to appeal a decision by the "Meta Arbitration Committee"
- When it is accepted that a project is to end, there will be a
proposal to the board for consideration
- Requesting the end of a project is not a zero sum game, it can go
the other way and result in sanctions against the person, group, project requesting it
Thanks, GerardM
PS In the ideas of the Language committee the Kanuri language would go to the Incubator. _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org