On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:33 AM, Chad <innocentkiller(a)gmail.com> wrote: I took a quick look at the few projects mentioned here, and it's worth noting that none of them are dormant, but their activity levels are all relatively low (and much of the activity I saw appeared to be bot-driven). Plus, none of them had a complete interface translation, even on the quick tour that I took. I understand that people all want theirs, everybody wants their pet project to be given life. However, we have to ask ourselves what is the benefit of a project that is (a) mostly bot-generated and (b) incompletely translated. If a project is generated mostly through bot translations of larger projects, we lose the argument that different languages may present information in a different way and hence helps improve our diversity of perspective. We end up with a situation where information we already have is encoded into a form that few people can read, with an interface that's written partly in english (so some english background is required of participants anyway). --Andrew Whitworth

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 10:46 AM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote: The issue is that they're never given a chance to prove themselves. I'd rather a project try and fail than not try at all. -Chad

*The Languages committee is usually pretty proud of the fact that since they were created, not a single project that they've approved has died or been closed as a failure. * Huh. I didn't know that. That is pretty impressive, actually. Ford MF On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote:

Hoi, Actually we do not say "no" a lot. What we do say a lot is "your language or your proposal is eligible". We do say "no" when it is clear that a language does not fit within the rules however, we often suggest how a proposal can be changed to meet the criteria. Thanks, GerardM On Sat, Sep 6, 2008 at 4:12 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote:

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com> wrote: There is nothing bad in trying to help to someone. At the other hand, need for localization, while, at one hand, is a bureaucratic measure, it is a reasonable measure to prove that project will be alive. BTW, adding 10 projects to ~650 (or even ~700) about stewards and SWMT care -- is not a lot. BUT, in this case Chad mentioned *Klingon*, a language created for pleasure, not for communication. Such language may become a useful one, but, today, it is not. Goals of WMF and people around it are not to increase someone's pleasure, but to help in human education.

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 1:06 PM, Andrew Whitworth <wknight8111(a)gmail.com>wrote;wrote: About how much effort does it take, from *outside* the people who want to be involved with the project, to start and stop a new project? I always got the impression it was "flip a switch" to start it, and "flip a switch" to stop it, and that the rest of the effort would be undertaken by those who are interested in the project. Basically, I figured there is more time and energy wasted discussing whether or not to start the project then there is in just starting it.

Hoi, When you consider how long it takes to get a project actually to be created, you know this is not the case. Thanks, GerardM The average time from being approved by the board and the actual creation is more then a month. Getting a project to be actually to be removed either to the Incubator or to elsewhere basically does not happen. On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 7:27 PM, Anthony <wikimail(a)inbox.org> wrote: