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(a)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. > > > -- > Yours cordially, > Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild) > > > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l >

"Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)" &lt;pathoschild(a)gmail.com&gt; 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(a)lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l well, i will clarify my propose. my intention is not propose exception. it's unifying the policy 1.- for create a wikipedia is necessary languages that have a standarized writing system more than speaking people. literated people in those languages. if a language doesn't have writing it's imposible to start a wikipedia, not interesting the number of speaker it have. previously they must create a standard writing system. 2.- if we review the original policy: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/Policy <<<<< Languages Can there be wikis in ancient languages? Yes. There are already wikis available in Latin, Old English, Gothic and Pali. Can there be wikis in artificial languages? Yes. There are already wikis available in Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, Lojban, Volapük and Novial. See the relevant note under the prerequisites for cautionary information about fictional languages. How many speakers are necessary? There should be enough speakers to form a viable community and audience. Whether a particular language qualifies depends on discussion. and the news: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy <<<<< Languages Can there be wikis in ancient or historical languages? Only Wikisource wikis in ancient or historical languages are accepted, because there are no living native communities to use other resources. Where possible, such languages should be bundled with the modern equivalent (such as Old English with English), though that is not required. Can there be wikis in artificial languages? Yes. There are already wikis available in Esperanto, Ido, Interlingua, Interlingue, Lojban, Volapük and Novial. See the relevant note under the prerequisites for cautionary information about fictional languages. How many speakers are necessary? There should be enough speakers to form a viable community and audience. Whether a particular language qualifies depends on discussion. there is an incongruity. because in the first question it is required native speakers. and in the second they are relieved of that. that, i think does more than strengthen the [1] argument: a writing language enough known rather than native speaking. 3.- in this regard, i proposed a simplified a unique criterion: <<<<< Languages * what kind of languages can have wikis? any that has a standarized writing system and enough writers and readers to form a viable community and audience. whether a particular language qualifies depends on discussion. What do you things? and a better propose? --------------------------------- Be a better friend, newshound, and know-it-all with Yahoo! Mobile. Try it now.

Chad &lt;innocentkiller(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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. -- Yours cordially, Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

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 &lt;dgerard(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com&gt; 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 &lt;pharosofalexandria(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 18/04/2008, Gerard Meijssen &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

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 &lt;geniice(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

On 19/04/2008, Mark Williamson &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote: 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

On Saturday 19 April 2008 14:32:38 geni wrote: It is not used solely in the liturgy, and new texts are being written in it today.

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.

Jesse Martin (Pathoschild <pathoschild@...> writes: <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages?oldid=474152#Information>? 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

Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote: 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

Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote: 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. 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

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

Gerard Meijssen 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

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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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 &lt;node.ue(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

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 &lt;cimonavaro(a)gmail.com&gt; wrote:

Gerard Meijssen wrote: projects, vote in that of you make that do not 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

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen wrote: 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: 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. 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. 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

Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote: 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. 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

...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 &lt;gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com&gt;om>:

Ziko van Dijk hett schreven: 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