----- Original Message ---- From: Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com To: Wikimedia Foundation Mailing List foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Sent: Monday, April 14, 2008 1:37:38 AM Subject: Re: [Foundation-l] Ancient Greek Wikipedia
Hoi, Greek is understood to be understood to have several brancheshttp://www.ethnologue.com/show_family.asp?subid=90066. Koine is according to Ethnologue part of "Ancient Greek". This is Greek until 1453 AD according to the ISO standard. Now when the definition of "Ancient" is wrongly applied, get this addressed at the appropriate places. This is the right way to approach this. Again, this is most likely to lead to a new code to acknowledge modern usage. Thanks, GerardM
for gerard and pathoschild
for you, is very important the need of a new class of ISO code? for opening a Wikipedia?
1.- Ancient is a neccesary adjective for differenciating with modern greek (native language), a different language (with its own gramar, sintaxis, etc). it needs even if is used in contemporanean context. unless the modern language no longer called "Greek". i guess, it is imposible.
2.- if you read my last post. you realize that even scholars don't differentiate extint languages that are still in use and the ones aren't to (the unique factor considered is the lack native speaker and no more). don't exist a concept for them. it is the perpetual problem of all the social science, the lack of accurate terms. (latin has also a code of extint language)
if ISO base its decision in these concepts. don't you believe that is practically imposible the creation of a new Kind of Code?
inevitably, it has to be used. does not exist another code for identifying ancient greek.
3.- with a sense of fair, if, i think, it has been more o less clear that ancient greek is still in use in many contexts. you would think is a moment to rethink the decission, woun't you think has been excessively restrictived?
____________________________________________________________________________________ Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now. http://mobile.yahoo.com/;_ylt=Ahu06i62sR8HDtDypao8Wcj9tAcJ
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.
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
Chad innocentkiller@gmail.com wrote:
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.
The language subcommittee was set up by the special projects committee and approved by the Board of Trustees. It was set up because the previous system was much more flawed, entirely based on pure numeric voting tucked in neatly amongst the flame wars and sockpuppetry.
Some common results of that previous system were political repression by out-voting, attempts to falsify votes by creating many accounts per person, empty wikis that even today attract vandalism and spam and and bias, takeover of a small wiki by another language group or a group of friends, poor quality, and so forth.
Furthermore, the votes were completely arbitrary, decided entirely on the whims of whoever happened to vote. When a request got through this flawed process, it frequently did not even get created at all. Some requests approved by vote in the early days were still open during the transition to the policy in late 2007.
In the new system, it's actually not that difficult to have a wiki created: meet the specific requirements outlined on the policy page, and the wiki will be created. It requires some work, but the arbitrariness and inequality of the previous system is virtually nonexistent.
Of course, if a wiki *doesn't* meet the requirements, it won't be approved. This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the process, it's an absolute condition. What we are discussing is not the Greek Wikipedia or any other particular case, it is the policy. If you think it is a waste of time to consult the community about changing the policy, you're welcome to ignore these emails.
The system is flawed, of course; I have never seen any perfect system. But it is vastly better than the system it replaced, and we're discussing ways to improve it right now.
On 17/04/2008, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, if a wiki *doesn't* meet the requirements, it won't be approved. This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the process, it's an absolute condition. What we are discussing is not the Greek Wikipedia or any other particular case, it is the policy. If you think it is a waste of time to consult the community about changing the policy, you're welcome to ignore these emails.
Uh, an example where the policy seems to get it wrong is a perfectly reasonable case to talk about; hiding behing "but it's policy!" is hardly an appropriate response or one that will engender confidence.
- d.
Hoi, The policy warts and all is clearly beneficial. We are discussing a corner case, this is how to deal with reconstructed languages. One of the things that we have is time. There is time to get a code for a reconstructed language, there is no urgency.
When you say that the policy seems to be wrong, we have to talk discuss why it would be wrong. The fact that some people do not agree with the policy as is does not invalidate the policy. As Pathoschild correctly states, this is not about Ancient Greek. If it were only about Ancient Greek the proposal would remain denied. Thanks, GerardM
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 2:45 PM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
On 17/04/2008, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com wrote:
Of course, if a wiki *doesn't* meet the requirements, it won't be approved. This has nothing to do with the difficulty of the process, it's an absolute condition. What we are discussing is not the Greek Wikipedia or any other particular case, it is the policy. If you think it is a waste of time to consult the community about changing the policy, you're welcome to ignore these emails.
Uh, an example where the policy seems to get it wrong is a perfectly reasonable case to talk about; hiding behing "but it's policy!" is hardly an appropriate response or one that will engender confidence.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The policy warts and all is clearly beneficial. We are discussing a corner case, this is how to deal with reconstructed languages. One of the things that we have is time. There is time to get a code for a reconstructed language, there is no urgency.
The English Wikipedia has been built in 7 years. Just 7 years, and look at all that has been accomplished.
Despite some vague conversation you report here, I see no sign of likelihood at all that the ISO is going to open up to your unprecedented requirement of a unique "reconstructed" code, a requirement that only you among the people in this discussion seem to consider significant. And if it ever were implemented in the medium term, it might be on a one-time basis for Greek, while not addressing the larger issue.
Which does not mean that we couldn't move over to a "reconstructed" code later if one was ever implemented.
But I assert that there -is- an urgency now. Waiting 10 years should not be an option. We would lose -far- too many good encyclopedia-writing hours.
Thanks, Pharos
Hoi, I spoke with the convener of the ISO working group that includes the ISO-639 codes. I spoke with someone from SIL. Not vague at all. When you suggest that it takes 10 years, you do not know what your talking about.. One year is more like it. It does not preclude continued work on the Incubator..
The English Wikipedia is not a good example.. comparing it with the Latin Wikipedia is a more reasonable comparison.
Again, there is no urgency and there is certainly no rush. Given Pathoschild's stance I am the closest that you have to ever getting an Old Greek project in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The policy warts and all is clearly beneficial. We are discussing a
corner
case, this is how to deal with reconstructed languages. One of the
things
that we have is time. There is time to get a code for a reconstructed language, there is no urgency.
The English Wikipedia has been built in 7 years. Just 7 years, and look at all that has been accomplished.
Despite some vague conversation you report here, I see no sign of likelihood at all that the ISO is going to open up to your unprecedented requirement of a unique "reconstructed" code, a requirement that only you among the people in this discussion seem to consider significant. And if it ever were implemented in the medium term, it might be on a one-time basis for Greek, while not addressing the larger issue.
Which does not mean that we couldn't move over to a "reconstructed" code later if one was ever implemented.
But I assert that there -is- an urgency now. Waiting 10 years should not be an option. We would lose -far- too many good encyclopedia-writing hours.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If you believe it would happen so soon (which I am quite pessimistic about, especially for the multiplicity of languages this might apply to), then why not allow these Wikipedias to exist under the "wrong" code for so short a time?
It would be easy to move them afterward, and you would find no opposition to moving them then. If Pathoschild would agree to this, would it be amenable to you as well?
Thanks, Pharos
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I spoke with the convener of the ISO working group that includes the ISO-639 codes. I spoke with someone from SIL. Not vague at all. When you suggest that it takes 10 years, you do not know what your talking about.. One year is more like it. It does not preclude continued work on the Incubator..
The English Wikipedia is not a good example.. comparing it with the Latin Wikipedia is a more reasonable comparison.
Again, there is no urgency and there is certainly no rush. Given Pathoschild's stance I am the closest that you have to ever getting an Old Greek project in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The policy warts and all is clearly beneficial. We are discussing a
corner
case, this is how to deal with reconstructed languages. One of the
things
that we have is time. There is time to get a code for a reconstructed language, there is no urgency.
The English Wikipedia has been built in 7 years. Just 7 years, and look at all that has been accomplished.
Despite some vague conversation you report here, I see no sign of likelihood at all that the ISO is going to open up to your unprecedented requirement of a unique "reconstructed" code, a requirement that only you among the people in this discussion seem to consider significant. And if it ever were implemented in the medium term, it might be on a one-time basis for Greek, while not addressing the larger issue.
Which does not mean that we couldn't move over to a "reconstructed" code later if one was ever implemented.
But I assert that there -is- an urgency now. Waiting 10 years should not be an option. We would lose -far- too many good encyclopedia-writing hours.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, It is NOT easy to change codes. Just consider the tragic story of the als.wikipedia.org a project that is squatting on the code for the most relevant Albanian language. We have asked this to be resolved for more then a year. As to the ISO process, I know how long on average it takes, I made it my business to know.
It is not acceptable to me to have projects that suggest to be one thing while in fact they are not. Ancient Greek is an historic language and as such it is no longer spoken. Either get its definition changed or get another code. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
If you believe it would happen so soon (which I am quite pessimistic about, especially for the multiplicity of languages this might apply to), then why not allow these Wikipedias to exist under the "wrong" code for so short a time?
It would be easy to move them afterward, and you would find no opposition to moving them then. If Pathoschild would agree to this, would it be amenable to you as well?
Thanks, Pharos
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I spoke with the convener of the ISO working group that includes the
ISO-639
codes. I spoke with someone from SIL. Not vague at all. When you
suggest
that it takes 10 years, you do not know what your talking about.. One
year
is more like it. It does not preclude continued work on the Incubator..
The English Wikipedia is not a good example.. comparing it with the
Latin
Wikipedia is a more reasonable comparison.
Again, there is no urgency and there is certainly no rush. Given Pathoschild's stance I am the closest that you have to ever getting an
Old
Greek project in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The policy warts and all is clearly beneficial. We are discussing
a
corner
case, this is how to deal with reconstructed languages. One of the
things
that we have is time. There is time to get a code for a
reconstructed
language, there is no urgency.
The English Wikipedia has been built in 7 years. Just 7 years, and look at all that has been accomplished.
Despite some vague conversation you report here, I see no sign of likelihood at all that the ISO is going to open up to your unprecedented requirement of a unique "reconstructed" code, a requirement that only you among the people in this discussion seem to consider significant. And if it ever were implemented in the medium term, it might be on a one-time basis for Greek, while not addressing the larger issue.
Which does not mean that we couldn't move over to a "reconstructed" code later if one was ever implemented.
But I assert that there -is- an urgency now. Waiting 10 years should not be an option. We would lose -far- too many good encyclopedia-writing hours.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
The difference is that grc.wp, unlike als.wp, would not be squatting on a space that could potentially be used by another language. If you presume that it is impossible to write an encyclopedia in the language designated by grc.wp, which I still think is an absurd argument, then I don't see the problem with letting the code be used for... well, whatever you want to call it.
As far as making up fake codes, codes like map-bms or lat-smg do not do the type of potential future damage that als.wp does. There is no potential for harm of any type, there is no squatting at somebody else's code.
Mark
On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, It is NOT easy to change codes. Just consider the tragic story of the als.wikipedia.org a project that is squatting on the code for the most relevant Albanian language. We have asked this to be resolved for more then a year. As to the ISO process, I know how long on average it takes, I made it my business to know.
It is not acceptable to me to have projects that suggest to be one thing while in fact they are not. Ancient Greek is an historic language and as such it is no longer spoken. Either get its definition changed or get another code. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:34 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com
wrote:
If you believe it would happen so soon (which I am quite pessimistic about, especially for the multiplicity of languages this might apply to), then why not allow these Wikipedias to exist under the "wrong" code for so short a time?
It would be easy to move them afterward, and you would find no opposition to moving them then. If Pathoschild would agree to this, would it be amenable to you as well?
Thanks, Pharos
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 3:22 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I spoke with the convener of the ISO working group that includes the
ISO-639
codes. I spoke with someone from SIL. Not vague at all. When you
suggest
that it takes 10 years, you do not know what your talking about.. One
year
is more like it. It does not preclude continued work on the Incubator..
The English Wikipedia is not a good example.. comparing it with the
Latin
Wikipedia is a more reasonable comparison.
Again, there is no urgency and there is certainly no rush. Given Pathoschild's stance I am the closest that you have to ever getting an
Old
Greek project in the first place. Thanks, GerardM
On Fri, Apr 18, 2008 at 9:14 AM, Pharos pharosofalexandria@gmail.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 17, 2008 at 9:05 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, The policy warts and all is clearly beneficial. We are discussing
a
corner
case, this is how to deal with reconstructed languages. One of the
things
that we have is time. There is time to get a code for a
reconstructed
language, there is no urgency.
The English Wikipedia has been built in 7 years. Just 7 years, and look at all that has been accomplished.
Despite some vague conversation you report here, I see no sign of likelihood at all that the ISO is going to open up to your unprecedented requirement of a unique "reconstructed" code, a requirement that only you among the people in this discussion seem to consider significant. And if it ever were implemented in the medium term, it might be on a one-time basis for Greek, while not addressing the larger issue.
Which does not mean that we couldn't move over to a "reconstructed" code later if one was ever implemented.
But I assert that there -is- an urgency now. Waiting 10 years should not be an option. We would lose -far- too many good encyclopedia-writing hours.
Thanks, Pharos
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia is not a good example.. comparing it with the Latin Wikipedia is a more reasonable comparison.
Not remotely. Ancient Greek is fossilized. Late Egyptian would be a better comparison. Ecclesiastical Latin may be near dead but it is still moving. Perhaps in time the Ancient Greek revival attempts will get it to the same point. For the moment they have not.
Someone already mentioned that Koine Greek is the ecclesiastical language of the Greek Orthodox Church and they still use it actively. Maybe there aren't as many people in the GOC as in the Catholic church (by a long shot), but I think it still counts for something.
Mark
On 18/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
The English Wikipedia is not a good example.. comparing it with the Latin Wikipedia is a more reasonable comparison.
Not remotely. Ancient Greek is fossilized. Late Egyptian would be a better comparison. Ecclesiastical Latin may be near dead but it is still moving. Perhaps in time the Ancient Greek revival attempts will get it to the same point. For the moment they have not.
--
geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 19/04/2008, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Someone already mentioned that Koine Greek is the ecclesiastical language of the Greek Orthodox Church and they still use it actively. Maybe there aren't as many people in the GOC as in the Catholic church (by a long shot), but I think it still counts for something.
Koine Greek is not Ancient Greek. Merely using it in the liturgy counts for nothing in any case the language remains fossilised. Simply Kyrie eleison on a slightly larger scale. The catholic church actually publishes a significant number of new documents in Latin.
According to the ISO, Koine is part of Ancient Greek. View the rest of the thread for discussion on this topic.
Mark
On 19/04/2008, geni geniice@gmail.com wrote:
On 19/04/2008, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Someone already mentioned that Koine Greek is the ecclesiastical language of the Greek Orthodox Church and they still use it actively. Maybe there aren't as many people in the GOC as in the Catholic church (by a long shot), but I think it still counts for something.
Koine Greek is not Ancient Greek. Merely using it in the liturgy counts for nothing in any case the language remains fossilised. Simply Kyrie eleison on a slightly larger scale. The catholic church actually publishes a significant number of new documents in Latin.
--
geni
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Saturday 19 April 2008 14:32:38 geni wrote:
On 19/04/2008, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Someone already mentioned that Koine Greek is the ecclesiastical language of the Greek Orthodox Church and they still use it actively. Maybe there aren't as many people in the GOC as in the Catholic church (by a long shot), but I think it still counts for something.
Koine Greek is not Ancient Greek. Merely using it in the liturgy counts for nothing in any case the language remains fossilised. Simply Kyrie eleison on a slightly larger scale. The catholic church actually publishes a significant number of new documents in Latin.
It is not used solely in the liturgy, and new texts are being written in it today.
On 19/04/2008, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Saturday 19 April 2008 14:32:38 geni wrote:
On 19/04/2008, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Someone already mentioned that Koine Greek is the ecclesiastical language of the Greek Orthodox Church and they still use it actively. Maybe there aren't as many people in the GOC as in the Catholic church (by a long shot), but I think it still counts for something.
Koine Greek is not Ancient Greek. Merely using it in the liturgy counts for nothing in any case the language remains fossilised. Simply Kyrie eleison on a slightly larger scale. The catholic church actually publishes a significant number of new documents in Latin.
It is not used solely in the liturgy, and new texts are being written in it today.
Links?
Like I said on a seperate thread. If there are more than 10 people willing to write an encyclopedia in the said language, let them.
At worst case scenario they may write an encyclopedia on a long dead language which is of no harm to anyone and a potential benefit to us.
On Saturday 19 April 2008 21:40:37 geni wrote:
On 19/04/2008, Nikola Smolenski smolensk@eunet.yu wrote:
On Saturday 19 April 2008 14:32:38 geni wrote:
On 19/04/2008, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
Someone already mentioned that Koine Greek is the ecclesiastical language of the Greek Orthodox Church and they still use it actively. Maybe there aren't as many people in the GOC as in the Catholic church (by a long shot), but I think it still counts for something.
Koine Greek is not Ancient Greek. Merely using it in the liturgy counts for nothing in any case the language remains fossilised. Simply Kyrie eleison on a slightly larger scale. The catholic church actually publishes a significant number of new documents in Latin.
It is not used solely in the liturgy, and new texts are being written in it today.
Links?
http://dp.rastko.net/list_etexts.php?x=s
Το μυστηριον τησ Αγιασ Τριαδοσ κατα τον αγιον Γρηγοριον Παλαμαν by Αμφιλοχιου Ραντοβιτσ, μητροπολιτου is a modern doctoral dissertation written in Koine Greek.
I am not so sure whether it is suitable to speak about "native speakers". There simply are languages without native speakers or where the number of native speakers is relatively small, like Esperanto, Latin and Swahili (30 mio. secondary language speakers, 2 mio. native speakers). On the other hand, Sateersk or dialects like Bavarian or Asturian may have "native" speakers, but this does not say necessarily that those "native speakers" want to write in a Wikipedia of "their" dialect. The existence of an ISO code does not seem to be very significant, indeed. Ziko
2008/4/16, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild@gmail.com:
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
"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.
"Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)" pathoschild@gmail.com wrote: Hello Crazy Lover,
The subcommittee does not make exceptions to the policy, so discussion should focus on the policy rather than on exempting particular requests.
Yeah, but the policy was pulled from the language committee's backside.
- d.
Hoi, Sorry this sentence does not parse for me !! What is it you are saying ?? Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:10 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)" pathoschild@gmail.com wrote: Hello Crazy Lover,
The subcommittee does not make exceptions to the policy, so discussion should focus on the policy rather than on exempting particular requests.
Yeah, but the policy was pulled from the language committee's backside.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
It's a polite way of saying "They pulled it out of their ass", which is an American idiom (maybe British too?) meaning that something is completely arbitrary or subjective.
Mark
On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, Sorry this sentence does not parse for me !! What is it you are saying ?? Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Apr 19, 2008 at 2:10 AM, David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
"Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)" pathoschild@gmail.com wrote: Hello Crazy Lover,
The subcommittee does not make exceptions to the policy, so discussion should focus on the policy rather than on exempting particular requests.
Yeah, but the policy was pulled from the language committee's backside.
- d.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
David Gerard dgerard@gmail.com wrote:
Yeah, but the policy was pulled from the language committee's backside.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Should we revert to the pre-subcommittee policy http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages?oldid=474152#Information? Essentially, the policy was "list your request below, achieve consensus in a vote, and poke developers yourself until they (maybe) create it."
If you agree that the current policy is better than the previous policy, it doesn't matter whose backside it was pulled from. The community is actively discussing what to change, so the policy is not decided solely by a black-box cabal.
Furthermore, most of the policy was not written by the subcommittee. It was proposed through the community in November 2006: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee/2007#Reform. This was at a time when discussion occurred directly on the page, so the proposal popped up on virtually every requester's watchlist. It was eventually implemented with no opposition, and months later adopted and amended by the subcommittee.
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild <pathoschild@...> writes:
David Gerard <dgerard@...> wrote:
Yeah, but the policy was pulled from the language committee's backside.
I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Should we revert to the pre-subcommittee policy
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages?oldid=474152#Information?
Essentially, the policy was "list your request below, achieve consensus in a vote, and poke developers yourself until they (maybe) create it."
If you agree that the current policy is better than the previous policy, it doesn't matter whose backside it was pulled from. The community is actively discussing what to change, so the policy is not decided solely by a black-box cabal.
Furthermore, most of the policy was not written by the subcommittee. It was proposed through the community in November 2006: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee/2007#Reform. This was at a time when discussion occurred directly on the page, so the proposal popped up on virtually every requester's watchlist. It was eventually implemented with no opposition, and months later adopted and amended by the subcommittee.
Sorry to come along late but I think a correction is needed here: so far as I can discover, the exclusion of ancient languages was not proposed through the community and was not discussed by the subcommittee. I could find no record that the amendment by which it was introduced was even noticed by the subcommittee. Please correct me if I'm wrong here!
Andrew Dalby
Andrew Dalby akdalby@hotmail.com wrote:
Sorry to come along late but I think a correction is needed here: so far as I can discover, the exclusion of ancient languages was not proposed through the community and was not discussed by the subcommittee. I could find no record that the amendment by which it was introduced was even noticed by the subcommittee. Please correct me if I'm wrong here!
Hello Andrew,
The policy itself was originally passed through the community, and a slightly modified version was approved by the subcommittee. The amendment excluding ancient languages was later agreed upon by the subcommittee (there is no community consensus either way on the amendment).
You can read subcommittee discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives (those archives are opt-in, so messages from two members are censored).
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Andrew Dalby wrote:
Sorry to come along late but I think a correction is needed here: so far as I can discover, the exclusion of ancient languages was not proposed through the community and was not discussed by the subcommittee. I could find no record that the amendment by which it was introduced was even noticed by the subcommittee. Please correct me if I'm wrong here!
The policy itself was originally passed through the community, and a slightly modified version was approved by the subcommittee. The amendment excluding ancient languages was later agreed upon by the subcommittee (there is no community consensus either way on the amendment).
You can read subcommittee discussion at http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives (those archives are opt-in, so messages from two members are censored).
While I'm not at this moment ready to comment on the matter of ancient languages, the question of "slightly modified versions" is a persistent problem for policy pages. Cumulative slight modifications can result in policies that are quite different from what is intended. If a community approves of a policy, committees should be reticent to change policies on their own without community approval; this should also apply to small changes that do not fall into strict pre-approved guidelines for changes.
I don't know whether the original community approved version included or excluded ancient languages, but any amendment to change the situation should be community approved. If a proposed amendment fails to meet community approval criteria it fails, and that's the end of it. It is not the mandate of a subcommittee to override that. I am well aware of the problem of inadequate community participation, but community silence does not mean consent, and without a predetermined minimum level of community participation no policy or policy amendment should be considered as approved.
Ec
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
If a proposed amendment fails to meet community approval criteria it fails, and that's the end of it. It is not the mandate of a subcommittee to override that. I am well aware of the problem of inadequate community participation, but community silence does not mean consent, and without a predetermined minimum level of community participation no policy or policy amendment should be considered as approved.
That is incorrect. The language subcommittee was specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a language subdomain creation policy. The committee furthermore did not override the community. Some community members questioned the need for that clause (long after it was introduced), and failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever on whether to keep, change, or remove it. As such, no change was made. Whether committees *should* make decisions or depend on the wider community to do so is a very different discussion than whether they *can*.
As an aside, I'm a little confused. You say that committees should not make or change policies, but you are a member of the Provisional Volunteer Council. Do you intend the PVC to simply be a proposal mill, throwing out ideas for the community to debate?
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If a proposed amendment fails to meet community approval criteria it fails, and that's the end of it. It is not the mandate of a subcommittee to override that. I am well aware of the problem of inadequate community participation, but community silence does not mean consent, and without a predetermined minimum level of community participation no policy or policy amendment should be considered as approved.
That is incorrect. The language subcommittee was specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a language subdomain creation policy. The committee furthermore did not override the community. Some community members questioned the need for that clause (long after it was introduced), and failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever on whether to keep, change, or remove it. As such, no change was made. Whether committees *should* make decisions or depend on the wider community to do so is a very different discussion than whether they *can*.
I can't speak in terms of the factual specifics for the language policy because I did not follow it as it was developing. I don't see it as appropriate that a committee would make policies simply because it can. That's an attitude that distances the committee from the community. "Override" is probably a stronger word than what I would use in the circumstances, when the result was based on an absence of consensus. What really needs to be clarified with respect to any committee is a demarcation of the committee's job in relation to the community's rights to decide.
As an aside, I'm a little confused. You say that committees should not make or change policies, but you are a member of the Provisional Volunteer Council. Do you intend the PVC to simply be a proposal mill, throwing out ideas for the community to debate?
That's an important question. In general I would say more yes than no, but it's still an important point that needs to be hammered out by all the PVC. With the number of active projects in Wikimedia the Council cannot presume to dictate what each of these projects will do. If it does that it will soon lose credibility and influence among the communities. Policies need to go back and forth between committee and community until there is is agreement. The same also applies to any amendment of existing policy. Naturally there need to be criteria for what constitutes community agreement.
Ec
Hoi, Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, you are now in the race to win votes. That makes you a politician and you have to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect you enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility to do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively the language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable chance for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their point of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV taken in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice and it is for them to live with the consequences.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist on the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee. When the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all time because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then the amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim to do.
NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been approved by the board have been created.
Thanks Tim !!
Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If a proposed amendment fails to meet community approval criteria it fails, and that's the end of it. It is not the mandate of a subcommittee to override that. I am well aware of the problem of inadequate community participation, but community silence does not mean consent, and without a predetermined minimum level of community participation no policy or policy amendment should be considered as approved.
That is incorrect. The language subcommittee was specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a language subdomain creation policy. The committee furthermore did not override the community. Some community members questioned the need for that clause (long after it was introduced), and failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever on whether to keep, change, or remove it. As such, no change was made. Whether committees *should* make decisions or depend on the wider community to do so is a very different discussion than whether they *can*.
I can't speak in terms of the factual specifics for the language policy because I did not follow it as it was developing. I don't see it as appropriate that a committee would make policies simply because it can. That's an attitude that distances the committee from the community. "Override" is probably a stronger word than what I would use in the circumstances, when the result was based on an absence of consensus. What really needs to be clarified with respect to any committee is a demarcation of the committee's job in relation to the community's rights to decide.
As an aside, I'm a little confused. You say that committees should not make or change policies, but you are a member of the Provisional Volunteer Council. Do you intend the PVC to simply be a proposal mill, throwing out ideas for the community to debate?
That's an important question. In general I would say more yes than no, but it's still an important point that needs to be hammered out by all the PVC. With the number of active projects in Wikimedia the Council cannot presume to dictate what each of these projects will do. If it does that it will soon lose credibility and influence among the communities. Policies need to go back and forth between committee and community until there is is agreement. The same also applies to any amendment of existing policy. Naturally there need to be criteria for what constitutes community agreement.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
A single person or even a handful of people disagreeing is one thing; dozens of people are quite different.
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, you are now in the race to win votes. That makes you a politician and you have to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect you enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility to do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively the language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable chance for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their point of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV taken in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice and it is for them to live with the consequences.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist on the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee. When the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all time because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then the amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim to do.
NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been approved by the board have been created.
Thanks Tim !!
Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If a proposed amendment fails to meet community approval criteria it fails, and that's the end of it. It is not the mandate of a subcommittee to override that. I am well aware of the problem of inadequate community participation, but community silence does not mean consent, and without a predetermined minimum level of community participation no policy or policy amendment should be considered as approved.
That is incorrect. The language subcommittee was specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a language subdomain creation policy. The committee furthermore did not override the community. Some community members questioned the need for that clause (long after it was introduced), and failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever on whether to keep, change, or remove it. As such, no change was made. Whether committees *should* make decisions or depend on the wider community to do so is a very different discussion than whether they *can*.
I can't speak in terms of the factual specifics for the language policy because I did not follow it as it was developing. I don't see it as appropriate that a committee would make policies simply because it can. That's an attitude that distances the committee from the community. "Override" is probably a stronger word than what I would use in the circumstances, when the result was based on an absence of consensus. What really needs to be clarified with respect to any committee is a demarcation of the committee's job in relation to the community's rights to decide.
As an aside, I'm a little confused. You say that committees should not make or change policies, but you are a member of the Provisional Volunteer Council. Do you intend the PVC to simply be a proposal mill, throwing out ideas for the community to debate?
That's an important question. In general I would say more yes than no, but it's still an important point that needs to be hammered out by all the PVC. With the number of active projects in Wikimedia the Council cannot presume to dictate what each of these projects will do. If it does that it will soon lose credibility and influence among the communities. Policies need to go back and forth between committee and community until there is is agreement. The same also applies to any amendment of existing policy. Naturally there need to be criteria for what constitutes community agreement.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, It is however the people in the committee who are doing the work. What value should be given to the opinion of dozens of people who are of a particular opinion, pushing their POV? The value of the language committee is in the fact that we no longer discuss if it is a good thing to have additional languages. It is in the fact that new languages can be understood by people who are not bilingual. It is in the fact that the new projects have been doing so much better then the projects that were started on a hope and a prayer. This difference is observable.
When you are of the opinion that the committee should reconsider, I would say that you might value the effort that goes into promoting language diversity. It is too easy to stand on the sidelines and find that things are not exactly in the way you want them. As you know, I am not happy with all the policies either but they are a HUGE improvement over what we had before. I am quite happy with the existing policies because the difference they make are truly beneficial. There will be a moment where we have an inflection point, this moment is not there yet. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
A single person or even a handful of people disagreeing is one thing; dozens of people are quite different.
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation,
you
are now in the race to win votes. That makes you a politician and you
have
to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect
you
enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility
to
do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively
the
language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable
chance
for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their
point
of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV
taken
in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice
and
it is for them to live with the consequences.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist
on
the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee.
When
the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all
time
because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then
the
amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim
to
do.
NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been approved by the board have been created.
Thanks Tim !!
Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If a proposed amendment fails to meet community approval criteria it fails, and that's the end of it. It
is
not the mandate of a subcommittee to override that. I am well aware
of
the problem of inadequate community participation, but community
silence
does not mean consent, and without a predetermined minimum level of community participation no policy or policy amendment should be considered as approved.
That is incorrect. The language subcommittee was specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a language subdomain creation policy. The committee furthermore did not override the community. Some community members questioned the need for that clause (long after it was introduced), and failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever on whether to keep, change, or remove it. As such, no change was made. Whether committees *should* make decisions or depend on the wider community to do so is a very different discussion than whether they *can*.
I can't speak in terms of the factual specifics for the language policy because I did not follow it as it was developing. I don't see it as appropriate that a committee would make policies simply because it can. That's an attitude that distances the committee from the community. "Override" is probably a stronger word than what I would use in the circumstances, when the result was based on an absence of consensus. What really needs to be clarified with respect to any committee is a demarcation of the committee's job in relation to the community's rights to decide.
As an aside, I'm a little confused. You say that committees should not make or change policies, but you are a member of the Provisional Volunteer Council. Do you intend the PVC to simply be a proposal mill, throwing out ideas for the community to debate?
That's an important question. In general I would say more yes than no, but it's still an important point that needs to be hammered out by all the PVC. With the number of active projects in Wikimedia the Council cannot presume to dictate what each of these projects will do. If it does that it will soon lose credibility and influence among the communities. Policies need to go back and forth between committee and community until there is is agreement. The same also applies to any amendment of existing policy. Naturally there need to be criteria for what constitutes community agreement.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
So you're saying that because what we have now is better than what we had before, we should leave it as it is and not try to improve upon it?
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, It is however the people in the committee who are doing the work. What value should be given to the opinion of dozens of people who are of a particular opinion, pushing their POV? The value of the language committee is in the fact that we no longer discuss if it is a good thing to have additional languages. It is in the fact that new languages can be understood by people who are not bilingual. It is in the fact that the new projects have been doing so much better then the projects that were started on a hope and a prayer. This difference is observable.
When you are of the opinion that the committee should reconsider, I would say that you might value the effort that goes into promoting language diversity. It is too easy to stand on the sidelines and find that things are not exactly in the way you want them. As you know, I am not happy with all the policies either but they are a HUGE improvement over what we had before. I am quite happy with the existing policies because the difference they make are truly beneficial. There will be a moment where we have an inflection point, this moment is not there yet. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:25 PM, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
A single person or even a handful of people disagreeing is one thing; dozens of people are quite different.
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation,
you
are now in the race to win votes. That makes you a politician and you
have
to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect
you
enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility
to
do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively
the
language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable
chance
for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their
point
of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV
taken
in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice
and
it is for them to live with the consequences.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist
on
the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee.
When
the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all
time
because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then
the
amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim
to
do.
NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been approved by the board have been created.
Thanks Tim !!
Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 10:00 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net
wrote:
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If a proposed amendment fails to meet community approval criteria it fails, and that's the end of it. It
is
not the mandate of a subcommittee to override that. I am well aware
of
the problem of inadequate community participation, but community
silence
does not mean consent, and without a predetermined minimum level of community participation no policy or policy amendment should be considered as approved.
That is incorrect. The language subcommittee was specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a language subdomain creation policy. The committee furthermore did not override the community. Some community members questioned the need for that clause (long after it was introduced), and failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever on whether to keep, change, or remove it. As such, no change was made. Whether committees *should* make decisions or depend on the wider community to do so is a very different discussion than whether they *can*.
I can't speak in terms of the factual specifics for the language policy because I did not follow it as it was developing. I don't see it as appropriate that a committee would make policies simply because it can. That's an attitude that distances the committee from the community. "Override" is probably a stronger word than what I would use in the circumstances, when the result was based on an absence of consensus. What really needs to be clarified with respect to any committee is a demarcation of the committee's job in relation to the community's rights to decide.
As an aside, I'm a little confused. You say that committees should not make or change policies, but you are a member of the Provisional Volunteer Council. Do you intend the PVC to simply be a proposal mill, throwing out ideas for the community to debate?
That's an important question. In general I would say more yes than no, but it's still an important point that needs to be hammered out by all the PVC. With the number of active projects in Wikimedia the Council cannot presume to dictate what each of these projects will do. If it does that it will soon lose credibility and influence among the communities. Policies need to go back and forth between committee and community until there is is agreement. The same also applies to any amendment of existing policy. Naturally there need to be criteria for what constitutes community agreement.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
I agree that community consensus on the policy should override committee consensus. However, there was no community consensus; we had a dozen or two people voicing conflicting opinions and proposals about whether to keep, remove, or replace that clause in the policy. Where there is a complete lack of community direction on that clause, I think it's within the committee's purpose to maintain the current policy.
If we were to strike out policy for which there is no community consensus, the result would be the same because we'd be forced to stop processing ancient languages until we had a policy under which to do so. However, I think holding requests in limbo indefinitely is a bad practice.
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
I agree that community consensus on the policy should override committee consensus. However, there was no community consensus; we had a dozen or two people voicing conflicting opinions and proposals about whether to keep, remove, or replace that clause in the policy. Where there is a complete lack of community direction on that clause, I think it's within the committee's purpose to maintain the current policy.
Absolutely, assuming that the policy was properly adopted in the first place. Keeping and removing are clear options, but each proposal to replace needs to be viewed as a separate option. It's not enough to say that we need to replace something without saying what we want to replace it with. If the replacers have a conflicting variety of proposals let them work out an agreement among themselves. In parliamentary procedure this is what the sub-amendment process does. Only after the sub-amendments have been sorted out does the amendment come up for adoption.
If we were to strike out policy for which there is no community consensus, the result would be the same because we'd be forced to stop processing ancient languages until we had a policy under which to do so. However, I think holding requests in limbo indefinitely is a bad practice.
The first expression here seems ambiguous as to whether the original policy had no consensus or the striking out had no consensus. If there is no policy the processing of each affected language would need to be treated as a separate issue with the full range of the usual arguments being repeated. I do agree that keeping requests in limbo is bad.
Ec
Hoi, It is possible to request a code for a revived extinct language. The argument in favour of such a code is likely to be adopted by the organisations that issue the relevant codes. "Ancient" languages cannot start a project because by definition expressions in that language are exclusively in the past.
There have been those that say that you can express modern language with old terminology. I have asked specialists about this notion and they reject this. When you want to learn Ancient Greek you learn the grammar by exercise and write new text, you create problems in understanding the vocabulary that is part of the language when studying modern text. The WMF is about learning, when a project is known to be flawed from its inception, when there are methods to make the distinction between the modern and the original usage clear, it is unconscionable to accept languages under the code defining the language as ancient or extinct when there is a clear route of making this difference clear.
When community decision means that this strategy is not explored because of a wish not to do this, the community is not listening to arguments and hence there is no wish to seek a consensus.
It is not really important if everybody agrees on a policy. I do not happy with the way the policy is currently explained. However, I am extremely happy with the policy as it means that we do not have to argue all the time. Changing the policy in a way that makes it less predictable and observable would quickly make the policy largely irrelevant and it would rapidly degenerate both the policy and the committee into a dysfunctional state. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
I agree that community consensus on the policy should override committee consensus. However, there was no community consensus; we had a dozen or two people voicing conflicting opinions and proposals about whether to keep, remove, or replace that clause in the policy. Where there is a complete lack of community direction on that clause, I think it's within the committee's purpose to maintain the current policy.
Absolutely, assuming that the policy was properly adopted in the first place. Keeping and removing are clear options, but each proposal to replace needs to be viewed as a separate option. It's not enough to say that we need to replace something without saying what we want to replace it with. If the replacers have a conflicting variety of proposals let them work out an agreement among themselves. In parliamentary procedure this is what the sub-amendment process does. Only after the sub-amendments have been sorted out does the amendment come up for adoption.
If we were to strike out policy for which there is no community consensus, the result would be the same because we'd be forced to stop processing ancient languages until we had a policy under which to do so. However, I think holding requests in limbo indefinitely is a bad practice.
The first expression here seems ambiguous as to whether the original policy had no consensus or the striking out had no consensus. If there is no policy the processing of each affected language would need to be treated as a separate issue with the full range of the usual arguments being repeated. I do agree that keeping requests in limbo is bad.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
...that is neither here nor there. You're sidestepping the discussion at hand yet again to say the same thing you've said in countless other messages.
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, It is possible to request a code for a revived extinct language. The argument in favour of such a code is likely to be adopted by the organisations that issue the relevant codes. "Ancient" languages cannot start a project because by definition expressions in that language are exclusively in the past.
There have been those that say that you can express modern language with old terminology. I have asked specialists about this notion and they reject this. When you want to learn Ancient Greek you learn the grammar by exercise and write new text, you create problems in understanding the vocabulary that is part of the language when studying modern text. The WMF is about learning, when a project is known to be flawed from its inception, when there are methods to make the distinction between the modern and the original usage clear, it is unconscionable to accept languages under the code defining the language as ancient or extinct when there is a clear route of making this difference clear.
When community decision means that this strategy is not explored because of a wish not to do this, the community is not listening to arguments and hence there is no wish to seek a consensus.
It is not really important if everybody agrees on a policy. I do not happy with the way the policy is currently explained. However, I am extremely happy with the policy as it means that we do not have to argue all the time. Changing the policy in a way that makes it less predictable and observable would quickly make the policy largely irrelevant and it would rapidly degenerate both the policy and the committee into a dysfunctional state. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
I agree that community consensus on the policy should override committee consensus. However, there was no community consensus; we had a dozen or two people voicing conflicting opinions and proposals about whether to keep, remove, or replace that clause in the policy. Where there is a complete lack of community direction on that clause, I think it's within the committee's purpose to maintain the current policy.
Absolutely, assuming that the policy was properly adopted in the first place. Keeping and removing are clear options, but each proposal to replace needs to be viewed as a separate option. It's not enough to say that we need to replace something without saying what we want to replace it with. If the replacers have a conflicting variety of proposals let them work out an agreement among themselves. In parliamentary procedure this is what the sub-amendment process does. Only after the sub-amendments have been sorted out does the amendment come up for adoption.
If we were to strike out policy for which there is no community consensus, the result would be the same because we'd be forced to stop processing ancient languages until we had a policy under which to do so. However, I think holding requests in limbo indefinitely is a bad practice.
The first expression here seems ambiguous as to whether the original policy had no consensus or the striking out had no consensus. If there is no policy the processing of each affected language would need to be treated as a separate issue with the full range of the usual arguments being repeated. I do agree that keeping requests in limbo is bad.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
If there are some people here who say the same things again and again, it's those handfull of people who are complaining and nagging about nearly every subject... a behavior that has been called "message spamming" at Wikipedia Weekly, if I remember right.
Those who propose a new language edition often don't even speak that language by themselves, or only at level -1 or -2. Have a look at stq.WP (Sater Frisian), installed in january. Only one user has Sater Frisian as a native tongue (a lady from that region), but her only edit was this very user page. Another one has level -4, right (he is Frisian from fy). Then there are five users with -1. What to expect from such a Wikipedia community? Half of their allegedly 500 articles are geographical stubs and similar pseudo articles.
I wonder how many of those who advocate an Ancient Greek Wikipedia really speak that language, at least at level -3.
Ziko
2008/5/27 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
...that is neither here nor there. You're sidestepping the discussion at hand yet again to say the same thing you've said in countless other messages.
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, It is possible to request a code for a revived extinct language. The argument in favour of such a code is likely to be adopted by the organisations that issue the relevant codes. "Ancient" languages cannot start a project because by definition expressions in that language are exclusively in the past.
There have been those that say that you can express modern language with old terminology. I have asked specialists about this notion and they reject this. When you want to learn Ancient Greek you learn the grammar by exercise and write new text, you create problems in understanding the vocabulary that is part of the language when studying modern text. The WMF is about learning, when a project is known to be flawed from its inception, when there are methods to make the distinction between the modern and the original usage clear, it is unconscionable to accept languages under the code defining the language as ancient or extinct when there is a clear route of making this difference clear.
When community decision means that this strategy is not explored because of a wish not to do this, the community is not listening to arguments and hence there is no wish to seek a consensus.
It is not really important if everybody agrees on a policy. I do not happy with the way the policy is currently explained. However, I am extremely happy with the policy as it means that we do not have to argue all the time. Changing the policy in a way that makes it less predictable and observable would quickly make the policy largely irrelevant and it would rapidly degenerate both the policy and the committee into a dysfunctional state. Thanks, GerardM
On Tue, May 27, 2008 at 1:08 AM, Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote:
I think that if the will of the community goes against the decision of the committee, perhaps it is time for the committee to reconsider.
I agree that community consensus on the policy should override committee consensus. However, there was no community consensus; we had a dozen or two people voicing conflicting opinions and proposals about whether to keep, remove, or replace that clause in the policy. Where there is a complete lack of community direction on that clause, I think it's within the committee's purpose to maintain the current policy.
Absolutely, assuming that the policy was properly adopted in the first place. Keeping and removing are clear options, but each proposal to replace needs to be viewed as a separate option. It's not enough to say that we need to replace something without saying what we want to replace it with. If the replacers have a conflicting variety of proposals let them work out an agreement among themselves. In parliamentary procedure this is what the sub-amendment process does. Only after the sub-amendments have been sorted out does the amendment come up for adoption.
If we were to strike out policy for which there is no community consensus, the result would be the same because we'd be forced to stop processing ancient languages until we had a policy under which to do so. However, I think holding requests in limbo indefinitely is a bad practice.
The first expression here seems ambiguous as to whether the original policy had no consensus or the striking out had no consensus. If there is no policy the processing of each affected language would need to be treated as a separate issue with the full range of the usual arguments being repeated. I do agree that keeping requests in limbo is bad.
Ec
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Ziko van Dijk hett schreven:
I wonder how many of those who advocate an Ancient Greek Wikipedia really speak that language, at least at level -3.
That's not the point. I, for example, advocate for classical languages, but I am Greek-0. The point is: even if there would be one million willing contributors on level 5, they would not be allowed to create the project under the current policy. I don't advocate the creation of projects with (too) few able speakers supporting it, but if there are enough willing contributors they shouldn't be rejected. Therefore I created the page http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages outlining my thoughts on useful prerequisites. It doesn't discriminate against any type of language based on its history, but it still disallows for "useless" projects by defining some exclusion terms (those exclusion terms based on the ability to create a useful resource). Would my rules have been policy, they wouldn't have allowed the creation of the Sater Frisian Wikipedia. Cause my rules advocate for three able speakers active in the test project and according to your numbers there where only two (one M and one 4, but the M user wouldn't count, cause the rules ask for activity too). A Greek Wikipedia too shouldn't be created, until there is a sufficient community of sufficiently able speakers in my opinion. But it at least should be possible and not be outlawed a priori!
Marcus Buck Slomox
and i proposed a criterion, that you can found in: Unique and workable criterion http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy i guess, it's time to discuss the Marcus Buck's and my proposal. if it is time to replace the current policy. (...)Therefore I created the page <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages%3E; (...)Marcus Buck Slomox
_______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation, you are now in the race to win votes. That makes you a politician and you have to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect you enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility to do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively the language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable chance for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their point of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV taken in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice and it is for them to live with the consequences.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist on the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee. When the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all time because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then the amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim to do.
NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been approved by the board have been created.
Thanks Tim !!
Thanks, GerardM
Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation and committee and communities and projects and individual contributor relations.
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim to do? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation,
you
are now in the race to win votes. That makes you a politician and you
have
to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect
you
enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility
to
do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively
the
language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable
chance
for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their
point
of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV
taken
in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice
and
it is for them to live with the consequences.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist
on
the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee.
When
the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all
time
because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then
the
amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim
to
do.
NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been approved by the board have been created.
Thanks Tim !!
Thanks, GerardM
Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation and committee and communities and projects and individual contributor relations.
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
You paint it as a question of one or the other. Either you listen to the concerns of people, OR you "do what you aim to do", as if it is impossible to do both.
This is a bad premise. I would hope that within the organizational structure of Wikimedia, there would be room for sharing ideas, and for some degree of controlled democracy. In many ways, the LC is doing a great job.
That does not mean that the LC should be completely closed to outside input. There should always be room for discussion and serious reconsideration of policies, and as of yet I think most people on this list would agree with the assessment that you do not appear to have listened to a thing anybody had to say about the policy, instead defending it without stopping to consider it on its merits. Of course, it is fine if you support the existing policy, but such a position of supporting the status quo should be reasoned and well thought-out, something that a couple of people have provided already with their positions here in support of the status quo, but that you have not with your circular reasoning and continued unwillingness to lend your ear to the concerns of mere non-LC civilians.
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim to do? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation,
you
are now in the race to win votes. That makes you a politician and you
have
to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect
you
enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility
to
do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively
the
language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable
chance
for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their
point
of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV
taken
in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice
and
it is for them to live with the consequences.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist
on
the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee.
When
the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all
time
because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then
the
amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim
to
do.
NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been approved by the board have been created.
Thanks Tim !!
Thanks, GerardM
Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation and committee and communities and projects and individual contributor relations.
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Let me amend that - apparent unwillingness. I'm obviously not in a position to say what you think or feel, only to declare how it would appear from my side.
Mark
2008/5/26 Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com:
You paint it as a question of one or the other. Either you listen to the concerns of people, OR you "do what you aim to do", as if it is impossible to do both.
This is a bad premise. I would hope that within the organizational structure of Wikimedia, there would be room for sharing ideas, and for some degree of controlled democracy. In many ways, the LC is doing a great job.
That does not mean that the LC should be completely closed to outside input. There should always be room for discussion and serious reconsideration of policies, and as of yet I think most people on this list would agree with the assessment that you do not appear to have listened to a thing anybody had to say about the policy, instead defending it without stopping to consider it on its merits. Of course, it is fine if you support the existing policy, but such a position of supporting the status quo should be reasoned and well thought-out, something that a couple of people have provided already with their positions here in support of the status quo, but that you have not with your circular reasoning and continued unwillingness to lend your ear to the concerns of mere non-LC civilians.
Mark
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim to do? Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, Ray as a candidate to the board of trustees of the Wikimedia Foundation,
you
are now in the race to win votes. That makes you a politician and you
have
to say and do the political things in order to win. I know and respect
you
enough that I expect different shades of grey as a consequence.
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility
to
do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively
the
language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable
chance
for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their
point
of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV
taken
in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice
and
it is for them to live with the consequences.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist
on
the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee.
When
the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all
time
because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then
the
amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim
to
do.
NB I am extremely happy and grateful that the new projects that have been approved by the board have been created.
Thanks Tim !!
Thanks, GerardM
Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation and committee and communities and projects and individual contributor relations.
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard
apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation and committee and communities and projects and individual contributor relations.
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do
what
we aim to do? Thanks, GerardM
First, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to fix your problem of top posting.
My concern is that there are several things here at play.
There is what the committees (all of them, not just your pet one) are *tasked* to do.
There is what the committees themselves internally evolve to *aim* to do.
There is what the communities expect the committes to do.
There is what some disgruntled or otherwise, individuals expect the committees to do.
There are several official resolutions for each of the several committees founding etc. which are not even close to being phrased similarly, which does, whether you like it or not, create a source of confusion as to the role of the several committees.
None of this is clarified. And asking a very pointed question at me, who had no part in the resolutions that created any of the committees, serves very little purpose of clarifying any of it.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.
Hoi, Given that the language committee is in the business of STARTING projects, there is no community, it is exactly one of the criteria for starting a project that there is one. When people who do not speak a language vote in order to have one, it is of no relevance at all. You may have noticed that voting is of little or no relevance for the language committee. When a language is recognised as such, we generally allow for a new project. Recognition is based on a living language recognised by the ISO-639-3.
When I ask you and Ray a pointed question, it is exactly because both of you are candidates for a seat on the board of trustees. Pointed questions are called for because they do not give room to weasel out of taking a position.. Then again, you can always flatly refuse to answer and make that seem reasonable.
I am not asking about other committees, I am not involved in them and do not have much of an opinion on them. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonavaro@gmail.com>
wrote:
Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard
apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation and committee and communities and projects and individual contributor relations.
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do
what
we aim to do? Thanks, GerardM
First, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to fix your problem of top posting.
My concern is that there are several things here at play.
There is what the committees (all of them, not just your pet one) are *tasked* to do.
There is what the committees themselves internally evolve to *aim* to do.
There is what the communities expect the committes to do.
There is what some disgruntled or otherwise, individuals expect the committees to do.
There are several official resolutions for each of the several committees founding etc. which are not even close to being phrased similarly, which does, whether you like it or not, create a source of confusion as to the role of the several committees.
None of this is clarified. And asking a very pointed question at me, who had no part in the resolutions that created any of the committees, serves very little purpose of clarifying any of it.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Yet again, you totally miss the point and rant about an only tangentially related topic. Jussi-Ville had a very good point to make, and it seems to have gone over your head completely.
2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com:
Hoi, Given that the language committee is in the business of STARTING projects, there is no community, it is exactly one of the criteria for starting a project that there is one. When people who do not speak a language vote in order to have one, it is of no relevance at all. You may have noticed that voting is of little or no relevance for the language committee. When a language is recognised as such, we generally allow for a new project. Recognition is based on a living language recognised by the ISO-639-3.
When I ask you and Ray a pointed question, it is exactly because both of you are candidates for a seat on the board of trustees. Pointed questions are called for because they do not give room to weasel out of taking a position.. Then again, you can always flatly refuse to answer and make that seem reasonable.
I am not asking about other committees, I am not involved in them and do not have much of an opinion on them. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
cimonavaro@gmail.com>
wrote:
Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard
apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation and committee and communities and projects and individual contributor relations.
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do
what
we aim to do? Thanks, GerardM
First, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to fix your problem of top posting.
My concern is that there are several things here at play.
There is what the committees (all of them, not just your pet one) are *tasked* to do.
There is what the committees themselves internally evolve to *aim* to do.
There is what the communities expect the committes to do.
There is what some disgruntled or otherwise, individuals expect the committees to do.
There are several official resolutions for each of the several committees founding etc. which are not even close to being phrased similarly, which does, whether you like it or not, create a source of confusion as to the role of the several committees.
None of this is clarified. And asking a very pointed question at me, who had no part in the resolutions that created any of the committees, serves very little purpose of clarifying any of it.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I wrote:
First, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to fix your problem of top posting.
My concern is that there are several things here at play.
There is what the committees (all of them, not just your pet one) are *tasked* to do.
There is what the committees themselves internally evolve to *aim* to do.
There is what the communities expect the committes to do.
There is what some disgruntled or otherwise, individuals expect the committees to do.
There are several official resolutions for each of the several committees founding etc. which are not even close to being phrased similarly, which does, whether you like it or not, create a source of confusion as to the role of the several committees.
None of this is clarified. And asking a very pointed question at me, who had no part in the resolutions that created any of the committees, serves very little purpose of clarifying any of it.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.
Hoi, Given that the language committee is in the business of STARTING
projects,
there is no community, it is exactly one of the criteria for starting a project that there is one. When people who do not speak a language
vote in
order to have one, it is of no relevance at all. You may have noticed
that
voting is of little or no relevance for the language committee. When a language is recognised as such, we generally allow for a new project. Recognition is based on a living language recognised by the ISO-639-3.
When I ask you and Ray a pointed question, it is exactly because both
of you
are candidates for a seat on the board of trustees. Pointed questions are called for because they do not give room to weasel out of taking a position.. Then again, you can always flatly refuse to answer and
make that
seem reasonable.
I am not asking about other committees, I am not involved in them and
do not
have much of an opinion on them. Thanks, GerardM
ROFL!
Why in heavens name would flatly refusing to answer seem reasonable?
I think I will continue to respond to relevant questions.
And as to taking a position, wow!
Weaseling out of same, wow!
I think readers of your rants have more than ample evidence of you repeating the same mantra, without adressing the point at all.
I am not singleing out your committee, precisely because I don't feel the responsibility/mandate vacuum is not only a problem only with your committee, and in so doing, I thought I was being charitable to the language committee.
I have very little specific objections to the way your committee has worked in the past, and if I did have, those objections would have been very minor and not at all ones that would have been directed at hindering your work.
If you really think your committee is totally divorced from all other committees in terms of your mandate, perhaps it would be best for you to advocate your committee to be called something other than a committee, just to specify that you are not playing by the same hymn book as the rest of the committees.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
Hoi, I do not play by a hymn book. As I indicated I do not know what other committees do, they do not seem to have the same level of interest to communicate what they are doing. Their processes are not as observable.
There are those that insist to call this committee the "language subcommittee", historically correct but there is no observable "special projects committee" that we are supposed to be part of. The language committee does what it is expected to do. The end result, the fiat of the board and the creation of projects are not for us to do.
In the mean time you have had your moment of laughter, but you did not answer the question. The point is that there are many people who spend a lot of time wording opinions, making few observable contributions. What I want to know of you is what has priority talk and process or the writing of content, the execution of processes..
Another question what IS the point ? We seem to disagree on that one. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen cimonavaro@gmail.com wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
I wrote:
First, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to fix your problem of top posting.
My concern is that there are several things here at play.
There is what the committees (all of them, not just your pet one) are *tasked* to do.
There is what the committees themselves internally evolve to *aim* to do.
There is what the communities expect the committes to do.
There is what some disgruntled or otherwise, individuals expect the committees to do.
There are several official resolutions for each of the several committees founding etc. which are not even close to being phrased similarly, which does, whether you like it or not, create a source of confusion as to the role of the several committees.
None of this is clarified. And asking a very pointed question at me, who had no part in the resolutions that created any of the committees, serves very little purpose of clarifying any of it.
Yours
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.
Hoi, Given that the language committee is in the business of STARTING
projects,
there is no community, it is exactly one of the criteria for starting a project that there is one. When people who do not speak a language
vote in
order to have one, it is of no relevance at all. You may have noticed
that
voting is of little or no relevance for the language committee. When a language is recognised as such, we generally allow for a new project. Recognition is based on a living language recognised by the ISO-639-3.
When I ask you and Ray a pointed question, it is exactly because both
of you
are candidates for a seat on the board of trustees. Pointed questions
are
called for because they do not give room to weasel out of taking a position.. Then again, you can always flatly refuse to answer and
make that
seem reasonable.
I am not asking about other committees, I am not involved in them and
do not
have much of an opinion on them. Thanks, GerardM
ROFL!
Why in heavens name would flatly refusing to answer seem reasonable?
I think I will continue to respond to relevant questions.
And as to taking a position, wow!
Weaseling out of same, wow!
I think readers of your rants have more than ample evidence of you repeating the same mantra, without adressing the point at all.
I am not singleing out your committee, precisely because I don't feel the responsibility/mandate vacuum is not only a problem only with your committee, and in so doing, I thought I was being charitable to the language committee.
I have very little specific objections to the way your committee has worked in the past, and if I did have, those objections would have been very minor and not at all ones that would have been directed at hindering your work.
If you really think your committee is totally divorced from all other committees in terms of your mandate, perhaps it would be best for you to advocate your committee to be called something other than a committee, just to specify that you are not playing by the same hymn book as the rest of the committees.
Yours,
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote:
No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
We have in fact discussed rationalizing the committee system, since it is only loosely connected and some of it is not functional. I intend to work on a plan for an overhaul in the near future.
--Michael Snow
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote
Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
Ray Saintonge wrote:
If a proposed amendment fails to meet community approval criteria it fails, and that's the end of it. It is not the mandate of a subcommittee to override that. I am well aware of the problem of inadequate community participation, but community silence does not mean consent, and without a predetermined minimum level of community participation no policy or policy amendment should be considered as approved.
That is incorrect. The language subcommittee was specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a language subdomain creation policy. The committee furthermore did not override the community. Some community members questioned the need for that clause (long after it was introduced), and failed to achieve any consensus whatsoever on whether to keep, change, or remove it. As such, no change was made. Whether committees *should* make decisions or depend on the wider community to do so is a very different discussion than whether they *can*.
I can't speak in terms of the factual specifics for the language policy because I did not follow it as it was developing. I don't see it as appropriate that a committee would make policies simply because it can. That's an attitude that distances the committee from the community. "Override" is probably a stronger word than what I would use in the circumstances, when the result was based on an absence of consensus. What really needs to be clarified with respect to any committee is a demarcation of the committee's job in relation to the community's rights to decide.
As an aside, I'm a little confused. You say that committees should not make or change policies, but you are a member of the Provisional Volunteer Council. Do you intend the PVC to simply be a proposal mill, throwing out ideas for the community to debate
That's an important question. In general I would say more yes than no, but it's still an important point that needs to be hammered out by all the PVC. With the number of active projects in Wikimedia the Council cannot presume to dictate what each of these projects will do. If it does that it will soon lose credibility and influence among the communities. Policies need to go back and forth between committee and community until there is is agreement. The same also applies to any amendment of existing policy. Naturally there need to be criteria for what constitutes community agreement.
Hoi,
When you ask people to do a task, when you give people the responsibility to do a job you either give the authority to do the job or you do not. The language committee has as its task to be responsible for the process to create functioning projects in new languages and new projects in existing languages. The objective is to create new languages that are objectively the language they say they are and to ensure that there is a reasonable chance for these projects to succeed. As a consequence a policy was formulated. This policy has clear benefits. There have been people pushing their point of view to change the policy. Solutions have been proposed that have as a consequence that people have to do things in order to have their POV taken in consideration. When they do not want to do this, It is their choice and it is for them to live with the consequences.
Jesse, above, quite concisely expressed "The language subcommittee was specifically tasked with formulating and implementing a language subdomain creation policy." Let's take that as a starting point, with the understanding that similar circumstances could apply to other committees.
There are functions there: formulating and implementing. Formulating, however, does not mean unilaterally adopting policies. A committee that does this too easily becomes a rogue. Once a policy has been drafted it can be presented to the relevant community for adoption. A first draft is likely to get a lot of feedback, and good ideas for improvement, so the committee reviews, redrafts and resubmits. This process can be repeated as often as circumstances require until the community is satisfied enough to adopt it. I'll address the notion of community satisfaction later.
Let's suppose then that the language committee develops a general policy for which projects will be developed in a new language, and that that policy has been duly accepted by the community. It then realizes that the policy makes no mention of extinct languages, either to include or exclude them. It then formulates an amendment to deal with that deficiency. That amendment needs to be submitted to the community for approval. If the community fails to give a decisive response, the amendment does not become a part of the policy and the question of extinct languages remains undecided.
Implementing is a different matter. If a specific proposal is presented for a Tocharian Wikipedia the committee can decide based on the existing policies. If the policy says no to extinct languages it has no option but to reject the Tocharian proposal. If the policy makes no such provision the committee has considerably more latitude.
It is exactly because the language committee has the authority to insist on the implementation of its policies that it is a functioning committee. When the community is free to discuss and force changes to the policy at all time because they do not like that their exception will not be granted, then the amount of time spend on endless talk will kill off the interest in being part of what will become a dysfunctional committee.
What you describe there seems to conflate formulation and implementation. Sure there will be people who try to implement a policy change because their pet project has not been adopted. It's unrealistic to believe that such a campaign will get anywhere. At that point the committee will have had the benefit of community support for its policy. The right of a committee to formulate policy is not necessarily an exclusive right; they are just in a better position to present credible policies. In theory, the complainer could propose that the community override policy, but if the committee had a hard time getting its policy across in the first place the chances of getting an eccentric exemption from policy will be between slim and none.
Ray my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do what we aim to do.
We all know that our communities can talk any issue to death, but at the same time we cannot assume that we all understand the phrase "what we aim to do" in the same way. There absolutely needs to be a common understanding of what is meant by "community acceptance" of a proposal. This would include standards for minimum participation in a decision, and what it means when there is insufficient participation. Too often we see policy changes where no-one is able to trace how the change came about. or the argument is made that because we have been doing things in a certain way it must be policy. That's not good enough.
That all being said, I think that the languages policy may be a relatively easy one to bring into line.
Ec
Ray Saintonge saintonge@telus.net wrote:
Once a policy has been drafted it can be presented to the relevant community for adoption.
While your suggestions sound good in principle, I don't think it's realistic to expect the crosswiki community to formulate or even agree on the policy. However, you're very welcome to spearhead an attempt at such a community-decided policy. Once there is community consensus to implement it, it will simply replace the current policy.
Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) hett schreven:
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.
Well, I made a proposal, but nobody commented on it. In my opinion, it is workable. If you don't remember:
I tried to write down my very personal opinion about which languages should be accepted for new projects and which not. Read it, if you like, under: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/User:Slomox/Languages.
I took Sater Frisian as a case, which was recently approved by the Language Subcomittee. So, we can presume, this language fulfils the criteria of the current policy on Language approval. Sater Frisian has some 1000 to 2000 speakers (some sources have numbers up to 5000, but as the policy asks for "native" speakers, speakers fully able to speak the language, we should stick to the bottom end). I took the number of 1000 speakers as a basis for my thoughts. 1000 speakers is few, but not that few, that a language with 1000 speakers has no chance to survive. So the premise of my thoughts is: any language with 1000 real speakers ("real" meaning, that you can speak the language fluently; for example I wouldn't say, my English is fluently, far away from that, so 1000 speakers who can speak their language far better than I can speak English) should be able to get its own Wikipedia. Let's make the check: Volapük will fail. Ido, Novial, Interlingua, Interlingue (all having their own project) too. Esperanto has more than 1000 real speakers. Klingon, Toki Pona, Gothic, Anglo-Saxon will all fail. Latin, Greek and Sanskrit have more than 1000 fluent speakers and would be eligible. All natural languages approved so far have more than 1000 speakers. With the sole exception of Norfuk/Pitkern with some 600 speakers. But my proposal allows for exceptions from the 1000 speakers rule, if there are good arguments. The 1000 speakers rule only applies to unique languages, so Brooklynese wouldn't be accepted. My proposal has no additional provisions on deciding whether dialects are unique languages of their own or not. This means there's no difference to the current policy based on ISO code and discussion.
I weighed the wish of the proposing community for progress in the proposal and the foundation's need to only accept viable projects. So I defined exact numbers on how long a test project should run at least, how much editors there should be at least and how much content they should have created before the project can be approved. I tried to rise the barrier as low as possible, cause I know many proposers of projects are disencouraged when there is no progress. For every type of project I defined specific requisites, cause the projects have different goals and work differently. For example for Wiktionary and Wikisource I set no 1000 speakers rule as for Wikipedia (and Wikinews and Wikibooks). See the link above for more details. I added rationales to all requisites to make them a bit more transparent.
Marcus Buck
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org