Board has decided to make Closing projects [1] official. The text of the policy is below (as well as at the mentioned page).
Language committee members who decided to take care about this would be listed inside of the section "Tasks" of the members list [2]. During the next weeks present requests will be normalized after the discussion at the LangCom list.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Members
* * *
This policy proposal defines the process to close (and in some situations delete) a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The proposals are handled by [[Language Committee]] members who opt-in to take care of this, and the [[Board of Trustees]] has final authority over the member's decision.
==Problem situation and new authority== The current [[Proposals for closing projects]] lack a clear policy. Several proposals have been made for a policy, but so far none has been adopted.
Because of that, a lot of small inactive wikis are proposed to be closed. Some people support out of principle ("wiki is inactive"), while others oppose out of principle ("let it grow"). Often, users came by and made a decision, which could even be the opposite of the actual consensus.
This policy tries to address this problem by: * requiring a valid reason for closure, and defining several reasons as either valid or invalid reasons * putting the procedure in hands of language committee members and final Board decision
The community has no longer authority over closing projects, but only an advising task. This puts the procedure in line with the [[language proposal policy]], which is also dependent on language committee and Board approval. That means closing projects is no longer easier than opening one.
Although the decision is made by a member of the Language Committee and no longer through community consensus, the Board will have final authority, and the LangCom is convinced that this procedure will improve the decision-making and that both the LangCom and the Board are the appropriate authority for dealing with closing Wikimedia wikis.
==Policy proposal==
===Types of proposals=== In order to distinguish routine situations from potentially more complex or unusual ones, projects that are proposed to be deleted are classified as one of two types: # Regular language editions that are small/inactive but do not generally harm to stay open (automatic spam is always blocked, contrary to the past). #: ''For example: Afar Wiktionary, Gaeilge Wikiquote, Guarani Wikibooks, ...'' # Other (often relatively more active) wikis that may be controversial, questionable or in another way uncommon. #: ''For example: Quality Wikimedia, Simple English Wikiquote, ...''
===Definition of actions=== * Closing a wiki means locking the database so it cannot be edited but all pages are still visible to public. User rights (sysop, ...) are removed and can be restored on user request when the wiki is re-activated. * Deleting a wiki means deleting the database so it is completely unavailable on the web. An XML file with the wiki's content will still be available for external use. * Transferring or importing content means moving useful articles/pages, along with the contribution history, to the [[Wikimedia Incubator]], [[oldwikisource:|OldWikisource]] or [[betawikiversity:|BetaWikiversity]] (or another site when explicitly mentioned). <small>See [[incubator:I:Importing]] for more info.</small> ** Files are left on the wiki because of a lack of an export function. When the wiki will be deleted, files could be downloaded manually if needed. <small>When such a software feature becomes available, files should be exported.</small>
===Proposing=== Anyone can propose to close a wiki. The following must be done: * The proposal must be categorised under either type 1 or type 2 (see above). * If you want the wiki to be deleted as well, that must be explicitly mentioned in the proposal. * When the proposal is submitted, the local wiki should be informed as soon as possible. * A good reason should be given why it should be closed/deleted. ** Inactivity in itself is ''no'' valid reason; additional problems are. When the Wikimedia Incubator is at a stage where it is usable to a certain extent like a real wiki<ref>In the future, the Wikimedia Incubator is intended to function as a place for normal wikis that are not large enough to need an own wiki (so we don't have a large number of small wikis but instead a normal Incubator wiki with "virtual wikis").</ref>, inactivity will be a valid reason. ** Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason (usually for type 1). ** Not meeting the current [[WM:LPP]] requirements is ''no'' valid reason.
===Decision=== * During a period of 30 <small>(''can be changed'')</small> days, the proposal is public to the community for comments and recommendations. * Any Language Committee member who has opted-in to take care of handling closing projects proposals can bring up the proposal on the mailing list. It is discussed during 15 days (or longer if needed), without formal voting. * Thereafter, the initial LangCom member makes a decision and sends its recommendation to the [[Board]] which has final authority.
===Proposal approved=== * For the first type of proposal, useful content should be transferred to the Incubator. Whether content is useful is hard to define, but common sense can help. For the second type, a different solution for the content is often appropriate. * A bug should be submitted to Bugzilla to request the closure (and deletion if applicable). * Re-opening projects is done through [[requests for new languages]], which uses the [[Meta:Language proposal policy]] that is much more strict than used to be in the past (when most wikis that are now proposed for closure, were started)
===Proposal rejected=== * The wiki remains open. * A new proposal may be submitted if there are new conditions. A proposal that is exactly the same, may not be made the same year to reduce unneeded duplicate proposals.
==Retroactivity== As has been done when the Langcom policy was introduced, all current proposals will be made invalid. Anyone can start a new proposal under the new policy.
==References== <references />
==Links== * http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/closed.dblist – automatic list of currently closed wikis * [[bugzilla:28985|Bug 28985]] – Wikis ready for closing (tracking) * Previous proposals ** [[Closure of WMF projects]] (August 2008 proposal) ** [[Closing/Deletion project policy]] (2006 proposal) * Other ** [[Proposals for closing projects]] ** [[Proposals for closing projects/General discussion about small, inactive wikis]] ** [[Requests for comment/Rights and closed wikis]]
Hi,
could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this advice to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the committee disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a one-person-call). Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?
Lodewijk
2011/6/25 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
Board has decided to make Closing projects [1] official. The text of the policy is below (as well as at the mentioned page).
Language committee members who decided to take care about this would be listed inside of the section "Tasks" of the members list [2]. During the next weeks present requests will be normalized after the discussion at the LangCom list.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Members
This policy proposal defines the process to close (and in some situations delete) a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The proposals are handled by [[Language Committee]] members who opt-in to take care of this, and the [[Board of Trustees]] has final authority over the member's decision.
==Problem situation and new authority== The current [[Proposals for closing projects]] lack a clear policy. Several proposals have been made for a policy, but so far none has been adopted.
Because of that, a lot of small inactive wikis are proposed to be closed. Some people support out of principle ("wiki is inactive"), while others oppose out of principle ("let it grow"). Often, users came by and made a decision, which could even be the opposite of the actual consensus.
This policy tries to address this problem by:
- requiring a valid reason for closure, and defining several reasons as
either valid or invalid reasons
- putting the procedure in hands of language committee members and final
Board decision
The community has no longer authority over closing projects, but only an advising task. This puts the procedure in line with the [[language proposal policy]], which is also dependent on language committee and Board approval. That means closing projects is no longer easier than opening one.
Although the decision is made by a member of the Language Committee and no longer through community consensus, the Board will have final authority, and the LangCom is convinced that this procedure will improve the decision-making and that both the LangCom and the Board are the appropriate authority for dealing with closing Wikimedia wikis.
==Policy proposal==
===Types of proposals=== In order to distinguish routine situations from potentially more complex or unusual ones, projects that are proposed to be deleted are classified as one of two types: # Regular language editions that are small/inactive but do not generally harm to stay open (automatic spam is always blocked, contrary to the past). #: ''For example: Afar Wiktionary, Gaeilge Wikiquote, Guarani Wikibooks, ...'' # Other (often relatively more active) wikis that may be controversial, questionable or in another way uncommon. #: ''For example: Quality Wikimedia, Simple English Wikiquote, ...''
===Definition of actions===
- Closing a wiki means locking the database so it cannot be edited but
all pages are still visible to public. User rights (sysop, ...) are removed and can be restored on user request when the wiki is re-activated.
- Deleting a wiki means deleting the database so it is completely
unavailable on the web. An XML file with the wiki's content will still be available for external use.
- Transferring or importing content means moving useful articles/pages,
along with the contribution history, to the [[Wikimedia Incubator]], [[oldwikisource:|OldWikisource]] or [[betawikiversity:|BetaWikiversity]] (or another site when explicitly mentioned). <small>See [[incubator:I:Importing]] for more info.</small> ** Files are left on the wiki because of a lack of an export function. When the wiki will be deleted, files could be downloaded manually if needed. <small>When such a software feature becomes available, files should be exported.</small>
===Proposing=== Anyone can propose to close a wiki. The following must be done:
- The proposal must be categorised under either type 1 or type 2 (see
above).
- If you want the wiki to be deleted as well, that must be explicitly
mentioned in the proposal.
- When the proposal is submitted, the local wiki should be informed as
soon as possible.
- A good reason should be given why it should be closed/deleted.
** Inactivity in itself is ''no'' valid reason; additional problems are. When the Wikimedia Incubator is at a stage where it is usable to a certain extent like a real wiki<ref>In the future, the Wikimedia Incubator is intended to function as a place for normal wikis that are not large enough to need an own wiki (so we don't have a large number of small wikis but instead a normal Incubator wiki with "virtual wikis").</ref>, inactivity will be a valid reason. ** Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason (usually for type 1). ** Not meeting the current [[WM:LPP]] requirements is ''no'' valid reason.
===Decision===
- During a period of 30 <small>(''can be changed'')</small> days, the
proposal is public to the community for comments and recommendations.
- Any Language Committee member who has opted-in to take care of
handling closing projects proposals can bring up the proposal on the mailing list. It is discussed during 15 days (or longer if needed), without formal voting.
- Thereafter, the initial LangCom member makes a decision and sends its
recommendation to the [[Board]] which has final authority.
===Proposal approved===
- For the first type of proposal, useful content should be transferred
to the Incubator. Whether content is useful is hard to define, but common sense can help. For the second type, a different solution for the content is often appropriate.
- A bug should be submitted to Bugzilla to request the closure (and
deletion if applicable).
- Re-opening projects is done through [[requests for new languages]],
which uses the [[Meta:Language proposal policy]] that is much more strict than used to be in the past (when most wikis that are now proposed for closure, were started)
===Proposal rejected===
- The wiki remains open.
- A new proposal may be submitted if there are new conditions. A
proposal that is exactly the same, may not be made the same year to reduce unneeded duplicate proposals.
==Retroactivity== As has been done when the Langcom policy was introduced, all current proposals will be made invalid. Anyone can start a new proposal under the new policy.
==References==
<references />
==Links==
- http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/closed.dblist – automatic list of
currently closed wikis
- [[bugzilla:28985|Bug 28985]] – Wikis ready for closing (tracking)
- Previous proposals
** [[Closure of WMF projects]] (August 2008 proposal) ** [[Closing/Deletion project policy]] (2006 proposal)
- Other
** [[Proposals for closing projects]] ** [[Proposals for closing projects/General discussion about small, inactive wikis]] ** [[Requests for comment/Rights and closed wikis]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/25/2011 11:20 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this advice to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the committee disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a one-person-call). Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?
The answer to the last question is simple: Nobody else bothered to normalize the situation and Robin took initiative. (Besides that, all of the issues were described inside of the LangCom report from the meeting in Berlin, so you could object before. And it was not posted at the regional court on Alpha Centaur, but on this list, as well.)
The first issue is the product of compromise inside of the Language committee. Gerard doesn't want to be involved in closing projects, so it has to be the initiative of particular members. It would be anyway triple checked: first during the community discussion, second time during LangCom discussion and third time during the discussion inside of the Board. Besides that, mentioning all relevant positions is the rule of functioning inside of the Language committee, which means that nobody would send to the Board suggestion without it.
2011/6/25 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
On 06/25/2011 11:20 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this
advice
to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the
committee
disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a one-person-call). Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee
has
a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about
whether
or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?
The answer to the last question is simple: Nobody else bothered to normalize the situation and Robin took initiative. (Besides that, all of the issues were described inside of the LangCom report from the meeting in Berlin, so you could object before. And it was not posted at the regional court on Alpha Centaur, but on this list, as well.)
As you may remember, the report was very long, and even though I speeded through it, I did not notice it since I wouldn't ever expect it there :) The fact you published it before doesnt make arguments less valid though.
I do agree we need some procedure, I am just not sure this is the right one.
Just to be super clear: the board approved this procedure explicitely in a vote? (I can't find the resolution yet on foundationwiki)
Lodewijk
On 06/25/2011 12:38 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
As you may remember, the report was very long, and even though I speeded through it, I did not notice it since I wouldn't ever expect it there :) The fact you published it before doesnt make arguments less valid though.
I think that the argument is valid as I didn't bother the list with not important issues from the meeting.
I do agree we need some procedure, I am just not sure this is the right one.
Just to be super clear: the board approved this procedure explicitely in a vote? (I can't find the resolution yet on foundationwiki)
Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the discussion.
*Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the discussion.
If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to put that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
2011/6/25 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
On 06/25/2011 12:38 PM, Lodewijk wrote:
As you may remember, the report was very long, and even though I speeded through it, I did not notice it since I wouldn't ever expect it there :)
The
fact you published it before doesnt make arguments less valid though.
I think that the argument is valid as I didn't bother the list with not important issues from the meeting.
I do agree we need some procedure, I am just not sure this is the right one.
Just to be super clear: the board approved this procedure explicitely in
a
vote? (I can't find the resolution yet on foundationwiki)
Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the discussion.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/25/2011 12:49 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
*Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the discussion.
If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to put that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.
No, Ting has given today explicit approval. Six days before Sj gave explicit approval with the note that Ting should give the last comment.
So we should wait for a resolution no? Until there is only your word.
PS: I'm not saying you are lying or anything, but that the final decision about that requires a Resolution. _____ *Béria Lima* http://wikimedia.pt/(351) 925 171 484
*Imagine um mundo onde é dada a qualquer pessoa a possibilidade de ter livre acesso ao somatório de todo o conhecimento humano. É isso o que estamos a fazer http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Nossos_projetos.*
2011/6/25 Milos Rancic millosh@gmail.com
On 06/25/2011 12:49 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
*Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the discussion.
If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to
put
that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.
No, Ting has given today explicit approval. Six days before Sj gave explicit approval with the note that Ting should give the last comment.
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/25/2011 12:54 PM, Béria Lima wrote:
So we should wait for a resolution no? Until there is only your word.
PS: I'm not saying you are lying or anything, but that the final decision about that requires a Resolution.
I don't think that it is needed because Board has the final word anyway, as well as Language proposal policy has never officially approved as-is, but through the general recognition of Language committee.
At the other side, I agree that it would be useful that Ting or Sj confirm what I said here.
Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?
Most close requests are for projects that would not have been created under the current strictr langcom guidelines.
Sometimes I think Langcom might better be called a "New Project Editions" committee, since they review not only whether a new project would be lingiustically distinct or has its orthography sorted out, but also whether there is a sufficient body of editors to make a new language-edition successful. Both opening and closing arguments about specific language-editions of a Project hinge at times on language, and on the activity level of those advocating for keeping/creating it.
On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Lodewijk lodewijk@effeietsanders.org wrote:
could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this advice to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the committee disagrees
I don't understand this part myself. But every committee has a certain leeway to decide how they will reach decisions.
*Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the discussion.
<
If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to put that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.
The proposed LangCom policy update was shared within the past few weeks.
The Board didn't hold a vote or pass a resolution; as with other langcom recommendations, we discussed the proposed changes and had the option to veto them but did not. I think this is a fine way for LangCom to present proposed closures of language-editions to the Board, where there is no community consensus. [For comparison: any group is welcome to present recommendations, or suggest resolution language, to the Board at any time; however this goes smoother when there is a process laid out ahead of time.]
I don't think this new langcom policy should override the existing option of using community consensus to close a project -- that simply happens very rarely.
SJ
Hello dear all,
on the August 2010 board meeting the board had talked about the responsibilities of the board, the staff and the committees (minutes here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/July_8,_2010 ). The board had worked through this with the RASCI matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix ). We had decided that the creation and closing of projects are responsibilities of the LangCom, the board should be informed about its decision. We believe that the LangCom has the knowledge and the professionism in issuing the correct policies, as it had showed in the past. When the LangCom came up with its new closing project policy proposal the board discussed it and thought that the policy is good. I therefore informed the LangCom that the board has no objection on this policy. There is no need for the board to issue a resolution on this.
Greetings Ting
On 25.06.2011 11:20, wrote Milos Rancic:
Board has decided to make Closing projects [1] official. The text of the policy is below (as well as at the mentioned page).
Language committee members who decided to take care about this would be listed inside of the section "Tasks" of the members list [2]. During the next weeks present requests will be normalized after the discussion at the LangCom list.
[1] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy [2] http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Members
This policy proposal defines the process to close (and in some situations delete) a wiki hosted by the Wikimedia Foundation. The proposals are handled by [[Language Committee]] members who opt-in to take care of this, and the [[Board of Trustees]] has final authority over the member's decision.
==Problem situation and new authority== The current [[Proposals for closing projects]] lack a clear policy. Several proposals have been made for a policy, but so far none has been adopted.
Because of that, a lot of small inactive wikis are proposed to be closed. Some people support out of principle ("wiki is inactive"), while others oppose out of principle ("let it grow"). Often, users came by and made a decision, which could even be the opposite of the actual consensus.
This policy tries to address this problem by:
- requiring a valid reason for closure, and defining several reasons as
either valid or invalid reasons
- putting the procedure in hands of language committee members and final
Board decision
The community has no longer authority over closing projects, but only an advising task. This puts the procedure in line with the [[language proposal policy]], which is also dependent on language committee and Board approval. That means closing projects is no longer easier than opening one.
Although the decision is made by a member of the Language Committee and no longer through community consensus, the Board will have final authority, and the LangCom is convinced that this procedure will improve the decision-making and that both the LangCom and the Board are the appropriate authority for dealing with closing Wikimedia wikis.
==Policy proposal==
===Types of proposals=== In order to distinguish routine situations from potentially more complex or unusual ones, projects that are proposed to be deleted are classified as one of two types: # Regular language editions that are small/inactive but do not generally harm to stay open (automatic spam is always blocked, contrary to the past). #: ''For example: Afar Wiktionary, Gaeilge Wikiquote, Guarani Wikibooks, ...'' # Other (often relatively more active) wikis that may be controversial, questionable or in another way uncommon. #: ''For example: Quality Wikimedia, Simple English Wikiquote, ...''
===Definition of actions===
- Closing a wiki means locking the database so it cannot be edited but
all pages are still visible to public. User rights (sysop, ...) are removed and can be restored on user request when the wiki is re-activated.
- Deleting a wiki means deleting the database so it is completely
unavailable on the web. An XML file with the wiki's content will still be available for external use.
- Transferring or importing content means moving useful articles/pages,
along with the contribution history, to the [[Wikimedia Incubator]], [[oldwikisource:|OldWikisource]] or [[betawikiversity:|BetaWikiversity]] (or another site when explicitly mentioned).<small>See [[incubator:I:Importing]] for more info.</small> ** Files are left on the wiki because of a lack of an export function. When the wiki will be deleted, files could be downloaded manually if needed.<small>When such a software feature becomes available, files should be exported.</small>
===Proposing=== Anyone can propose to close a wiki. The following must be done:
- The proposal must be categorised under either type 1 or type 2 (see
above).
- If you want the wiki to be deleted as well, that must be explicitly
mentioned in the proposal.
- When the proposal is submitted, the local wiki should be informed as
soon as possible.
- A good reason should be given why it should be closed/deleted.
** Inactivity in itself is ''no'' valid reason; additional problems are. When the Wikimedia Incubator is at a stage where it is usable to a certain extent like a real wiki<ref>In the future, the Wikimedia Incubator is intended to function as a place for normal wikis that are not large enough to need an own wiki (so we don't have a large number of small wikis but instead a normal Incubator wiki with "virtual wikis").</ref>, inactivity will be a valid reason. ** Absence of content since the wiki's creation is a valid reason (usually for type 1). ** Not meeting the current [[WM:LPP]] requirements is ''no'' valid reason.
===Decision===
- During a period of 30<small>(''can be changed'')</small> days, the
proposal is public to the community for comments and recommendations.
- Any Language Committee member who has opted-in to take care of
handling closing projects proposals can bring up the proposal on the mailing list. It is discussed during 15 days (or longer if needed), without formal voting.
- Thereafter, the initial LangCom member makes a decision and sends its
recommendation to the [[Board]] which has final authority.
===Proposal approved===
- For the first type of proposal, useful content should be transferred
to the Incubator. Whether content is useful is hard to define, but common sense can help. For the second type, a different solution for the content is often appropriate.
- A bug should be submitted to Bugzilla to request the closure (and
deletion if applicable).
- Re-opening projects is done through [[requests for new languages]],
which uses the [[Meta:Language proposal policy]] that is much more strict than used to be in the past (when most wikis that are now proposed for closure, were started)
===Proposal rejected===
- The wiki remains open.
- A new proposal may be submitted if there are new conditions. A
proposal that is exactly the same, may not be made the same year to reduce unneeded duplicate proposals.
==Retroactivity== As has been done when the Langcom policy was introduced, all current proposals will be made invalid. Anyone can start a new proposal under the new policy.
==References==
<references />
==Links==
- http://noc.wikimedia.org/conf/closed.dblist – automatic list of
currently closed wikis
- [[bugzilla:28985|Bug 28985]] – Wikis ready for closing (tracking)
- Previous proposals
** [[Closure of WMF projects]] (August 2008 proposal) ** [[Closing/Deletion project policy]] (2006 proposal)
- Other
** [[Proposals for closing projects]] ** [[Proposals for closing projects/General discussion about small, inactive wikis]] ** [[Requests for comment/Rights and closed wikis]]
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On 06/27/2011 11:39 AM, Ting Chen wrote:
on the August 2010 board meeting the board had talked about the responsibilities of the board, the staff and the committees (minutes here: http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Minutes/July_8,_2010 ). The board had worked through this with the RASCI matrix (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Responsibility_assignment_matrix ). We had decided that the creation and closing of projects are responsibilities of the LangCom, the board should be informed about its decision. We believe that the LangCom has the knowledge and the professionism in issuing the correct policies, as it had showed in the past. When the LangCom came up with its new closing project policy proposal the board discussed it and thought that the policy is good. I therefore informed the LangCom that the board has no objection on this policy. There is no need for the board to issue a resolution on this.
Thanks, Ting!
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org