On Jan 15, 2008 8:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I tried to point out to you personally how the policy is consistent in time. I also explained why the policy is reasonable. As I have said the same things now several times, I do not want to repeat the things publicly again unless there is a new point to clarify.
It is your wishes not mine. And if you think it is enough to persuade me to cover your inequity for all Japanese people involved into Wiversity sorry I disagree.
There is no reason to hide it in a cupboard. And I esteem transparency.
And if there is any new point - you still haven't provide why inequity between Greeks and Japanese justified.
Because of my respect to you I have endeavoured to word things differently and more personally. I do not do that for many others. :)
1. I don't have an interest to discuss with you as individual. I ask Langcom for their opinion as Wikimedia Committee. Not you individual. Hence your wish for private conversation is irrelevant. 2. As a committee member, I rather wish you esteem the all Wikiversity people, not your preferring individuals. And as a committee member you should do, imo.
PS my name is Gerard not Gerald :)
Sorry, it is hard for native Japanese speaker to distinguish them.
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Back to foundation-l.
Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in that mail you didn't respond any of my specific questions.
I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency in GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is his standpoint?
In this context what means a privately sent mail?
In both points a reasonable public clear response in an appropriate manner will be appreciated.
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The policy was recently changed. All the languages that were at that
time
approved or were in the process of being approved do not have to comply
with
the new standard. The process of being approved starts when a member of
the
langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for a project.
This
is often communicated privately with people representing the new
project.
We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for Japanese ... without full localisation important messages will not be available and consequently when new software is introduced there will be a lot of uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an exension. They
are
extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require any extension messages for a first project in a language because we trust the
community to
do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these messages are
translated
in the local project.
With a second project in a language it becomes even more important that
the
localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for the new requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation. When the localisation is only done in the biggest project. The smaller projects
lose
out.
I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to improve the localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the policy and the hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things have
already
improved quite substantially over the last few months.
Thanks, Gerard
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, Several members of the language committee are extremely unhappy with Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord. They have indicated that they will block final approval for any project by
going
back
on this necessary part of the policy.
Unless one other member of Langcom gives their understanding, I think it wise not to comment to this part of your statement.
And I take it strangely you speak without clarification as whom you are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain individual on his individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom.
Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on consensus?
Again, there are two parts to the policy.
- When a language is starting it only needs to do the most used
messages
of
MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language.
- When a project request is a subsequent project for a language, all
MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by the WMF
are
required.
[snip]
It is exactly for languages that use a different script that it is
vital
that the localisation is done completely. For these languages there
is
no
chance that the English word is the same or similar.
Your argument here again become pointless. "A different script" is unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric. Even if I assume you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki default = latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight of differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not latin) and Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek is not English word.
Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for your favor to Greek project.
MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our information. It
needs as
much tender loving care as we give to our content. MediaWiki
receives a
lot
of tender loving care from the developers. We can show our
appreciation
by
making sure that their software is properly understood and
appreciated
by
all its users not only for the people that know English and get
everything
by default.
Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if Pathoschild pointed out flows in your wording?
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
<pathoschild@gmail.com >
wrote:
Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for Japanese, and
it
seems that this problem is caused by a change that happened a few
days
ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought them up
for
subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on them, because
it
didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much difference).
I'll
keep you updated off-list.
Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that page)
those
numbers are only there to give a general idea of the discussion.
Since
they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most of the
time.
-- Yours cordially, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I certainly don't want to sit between you guys but just want to highlight something that I think I understood (but might be wrong) from Gerard's writings and that you may have missed:
It seems to me that the Greek project has been under examination before the change in policy that creates this new stronger requirement, whereas the Japanese has been examined after this change. It's not that the two projects are considered differently under the same rules, it is that they are considered with different rules because the rules have changed (for every project that has not been examined yet, including any additional Greek project that may come after that one) between the two requests.
Now, I might be wrong; This is not very well mentioned in Gerard's mails but I think it is hinted.
Not taking any position for or against that change in rule :-)
Kind regards, Jerome
2008/1/15, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I tried to point out to you personally how the policy is consistent in
time.
I also explained why the policy is reasonable. As I have said the same things now several times, I do not want to repeat the things publicly
again
unless there is a new point to clarify.
It is your wishes not mine. And if you think it is enough to persuade me to cover your inequity for all Japanese people involved into Wiversity sorry I disagree.
There is no reason to hide it in a cupboard. And I esteem transparency.
And if there is any new point - you still haven't provide why inequity between Greeks and Japanese justified.
Because of my respect to you I have endeavoured to word things differently and more personally. I do not do
that
for many others. :)
- I don't have an interest to discuss with you as individual. I ask
Langcom for their opinion as Wikimedia Committee. Not you individual. Hence your wish for private conversation is irrelevant. 2. As a committee member, I rather wish you esteem the all Wikiversity people, not your preferring individuals. And as a committee member you should do, imo.
PS my name is Gerard not Gerald :)
Sorry, it is hard for native Japanese speaker to distinguish them.
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Back to foundation-l.
Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in that mail you didn't respond any of my specific questions.
I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency in GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is his standpoint?
In this context what means a privately sent mail?
In both points a reasonable public clear response in an appropriate manner will be appreciated.
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The policy was recently changed. All the languages that were at that
time
approved or were in the process of being approved do not have to
comply
with
the new standard. The process of being approved starts when a member
of
the
langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for a
project.
This
is often communicated privately with people representing the new
project.
We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for Japanese
...
without full localisation important messages will not be available
and
consequently when new software is introduced there will be a lot of uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an exension.
They
are
extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require any
extension
messages for a first project in a language because we trust the
community to
do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these messages are
translated
in the local project.
With a second project in a language it becomes even more important
that
the
localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for the new requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation. When the localisation is only done in the biggest project. The smaller
projects
lose
out.
I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to improve the localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the policy and
the
hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things have
already
improved quite substantially over the last few months.
Thanks, Gerard
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi, Several members of the language committee are extremely unhappy
with
Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord. They
have
indicated that they will block final approval for any project by
going
back
on this necessary part of the policy.
Unless one other member of Langcom gives their understanding, I
think
it wise not to comment to this part of your statement.
And I take it strangely you speak without clarification as whom
you
are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain individual on his individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom.
Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on consensus?
Again, there are two parts to the policy.
- When a language is starting it only needs to do the most used
messages
of
MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language.
- When a project request is a subsequent project for a language,
all
MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by the
WMF
are
required.
[snip]
It is exactly for languages that use a different script that it
is
vital
that the localisation is done completely. For these languages
there
is
no
chance that the English word is the same or similar.
Your argument here again become pointless. "A different script" is unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric. Even if I
assume
you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki default = latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight of differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not latin)
and
Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek is not English word.
Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for your
favor
to Greek project.
MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our information.
It
needs as
much tender loving care as we give to our content. MediaWiki
receives a
lot
of tender loving care from the developers. We can show our
appreciation
by
making sure that their software is properly understood and
appreciated
by
all its users not only for the people that know English and get
everything
by default.
Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if Pathoschild
pointed
out flows in your wording?
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
<pathoschild@gmail.com >
wrote:
> Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for Japanese,
and
it
> seems that this problem is caused by a change that happened a
few
days
> ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought them
up
for
> subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on them,
because
it
> didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much
difference).
I'll
> keep you updated off-list. > > Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that page)
those
> numbers are only there to give a general idea of the
discussion.
Since
> they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most of
the
time.
> > -- > Yours cordially, > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, Indeed. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 1:09 PM, Jerome Banal jerome.banal@gmail.com wrote:
I certainly don't want to sit between you guys but just want to highlight something that I think I understood (but might be wrong) from Gerard's writings and that you may have missed:
It seems to me that the Greek project has been under examination before the change in policy that creates this new stronger requirement, whereas the Japanese has been examined after this change. It's not that the two projects are considered differently under the same rules, it is that they are considered with different rules because the rules have changed (for every project that has not been examined yet, including any additional Greek project that may come after that one) between the two requests.
Now, I might be wrong; This is not very well mentioned in Gerard's mails but I think it is hinted.
Not taking any position for or against that change in rule :-)
Kind regards, Jerome
2008/1/15, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I tried to point out to you personally how the policy is consistent in
time.
I also explained why the policy is reasonable. As I have said the same things now several times, I do not want to repeat the things publicly
again
unless there is a new point to clarify.
It is your wishes not mine. And if you think it is enough to persuade me to cover your inequity for all Japanese people involved into Wiversity sorry I disagree.
There is no reason to hide it in a cupboard. And I esteem transparency.
And if there is any new point - you still haven't provide why inequity between Greeks and Japanese justified.
Because of my respect to you I have endeavoured to word things differently and more personally. I do not
do
that
for many others. :)
- I don't have an interest to discuss with you as individual. I ask
Langcom for their opinion as Wikimedia Committee. Not you individual. Hence your wish for private conversation is irrelevant. 2. As a committee member, I rather wish you esteem the all Wikiversity people, not your preferring individuals. And as a committee member you should do, imo.
PS my name is Gerard not Gerald :)
Sorry, it is hard for native Japanese speaker to distinguish them.
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Back to foundation-l.
Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in that mail you didn't respond any of my specific questions.
I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency in GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is his standpoint?
In this context what means a privately sent mail?
In both points a reasonable public clear response in an appropriate manner will be appreciated.
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The policy was recently changed. All the languages that were at
that
time
approved or were in the process of being approved do not have to
comply
with
the new standard. The process of being approved starts when a
member
of
the
langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for a
project.
This
is often communicated privately with people representing the new
project.
We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for
Japanese
...
without full localisation important messages will not be available
and
consequently when new software is introduced there will be a lot
of
uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an
exension.
They
are
extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require any
extension
messages for a first project in a language because we trust the
community to
do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these messages are
translated
in the local project.
With a second project in a language it becomes even more important
that
the
localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for the new requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation. When
the
localisation is only done in the biggest project. The smaller
projects
lose
out.
I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to improve
the
localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the policy
and
the
hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things
have
already
improved quite substantially over the last few months.
Thanks, Gerard
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hoi, > Several members of the language committee are extremely
unhappy
with
> Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord. They
have
> indicated that they will block final approval for any project
by
going
back
> on this necessary part of the policy.
Unless one other member of Langcom gives their understanding, I
think
it wise not to comment to this part of your statement.
And I take it strangely you speak without clarification as whom
you
are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain individual on
his
individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom.
Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on consensus?
> Again, there are two parts to the policy. > * When a language is starting it only needs to do the most
used
messages
of
> MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language. > * When a project request is a subsequent project for a
language,
all
> MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by
the
WMF
are
> required.
[snip]
> It is exactly for languages that use a different script that
it
is
vital
> that the localisation is done completely. For these languages
there
is
no
> chance that the English word is the same or similar.
Your argument here again become pointless. "A different script"
is
unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric. Even if I
assume
you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki default
=
latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight of differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not latin)
and
Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek is not English word.
Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for your
favor
to Greek project.
> MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our
information.
It
needs as
> much tender loving care as we give to our content. MediaWiki
receives a
lot
> of tender loving care from the developers. We can show our
appreciation
by
> making sure that their software is properly understood and
appreciated
by
> all its users not only for the people that know English and
get
everything
> by default.
Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if Pathoschild
pointed
out flows in your wording?
> Thanks, > GerardM > > On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
<pathoschild@gmail.com >
> wrote: > > > > Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for
Japanese,
and
it
> > seems that this problem is caused by a change that happened
a
few
days
> > ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought them
up
for
> > subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on them,
because
it
> > didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much
difference).
I'll
> > keep you updated off-list. > > > > Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that
page)
those
> > numbers are only there to give a general idea of the
discussion.
Since
> > they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most of
the
time.
> > > > -- > > Yours cordially, > > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Jerome Banal jerome.banal@gmail.com wrote:
I certainly don't want to sit between you guys but just want to highlight something that I think I understood (but might be wrong) from Gerard's writings and that you may have missed:
It seems to me that the Greek project has been under examination before the change in policy that creates this new stronger requirement, whereas the Japanese has been examined after this change.
[show] Wikiversity Greek 3 Approved 10-Jan-2008 [show] Wikiversity Japanese 2 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007
And it was January 5 that GerardM told Japanese Wikiversity to localize all files.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWik...
I am afraid your chronology is anachronistic and not based on the fact.
It's not that the two projects are considered differently under the same rules, it is that they are considered with different rules because the rules have changed (for every project that has not been examined yet, including any additional Greek project that may come after that one) between the two requests.
Now, I might be wrong; This is not very well mentioned in Gerard's mails but I think it is hinted.
Not taking any position for or against that change in rule :-)
Kind regards, Jerome
2008/1/15, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I tried to point out to you personally how the policy is consistent in
time.
I also explained why the policy is reasonable. As I have said the same things now several times, I do not want to repeat the things publicly
again
unless there is a new point to clarify.
It is your wishes not mine. And if you think it is enough to persuade me to cover your inequity for all Japanese people involved into Wiversity sorry I disagree.
There is no reason to hide it in a cupboard. And I esteem transparency.
And if there is any new point - you still haven't provide why inequity between Greeks and Japanese justified.
Because of my respect to you I have endeavoured to word things differently and more personally. I do not do
that
for many others. :)
- I don't have an interest to discuss with you as individual. I ask
Langcom for their opinion as Wikimedia Committee. Not you individual. Hence your wish for private conversation is irrelevant. 2. As a committee member, I rather wish you esteem the all Wikiversity people, not your preferring individuals. And as a committee member you should do, imo.
PS my name is Gerard not Gerald :)
Sorry, it is hard for native Japanese speaker to distinguish them.
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Back to foundation-l.
Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in that mail you didn't respond any of my specific questions.
I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency in GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is his standpoint?
In this context what means a privately sent mail?
In both points a reasonable public clear response in an appropriate manner will be appreciated.
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The policy was recently changed. All the languages that were at that
time
approved or were in the process of being approved do not have to
comply
with
the new standard. The process of being approved starts when a member
of
the
langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for a
project.
This
is often communicated privately with people representing the new
project.
We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for Japanese
...
without full localisation important messages will not be available
and
consequently when new software is introduced there will be a lot of uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an exension.
They
are
extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require any
extension
messages for a first project in a language because we trust the
community to
do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these messages are
translated
in the local project.
With a second project in a language it becomes even more important
that
the
localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for the new requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation. When the localisation is only done in the biggest project. The smaller
projects
lose
out.
I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to improve the localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the policy and
the
hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things have
already
improved quite substantially over the last few months.
Thanks, Gerard
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Hoi, > Several members of the language committee are extremely unhappy
with
> Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord. They
have
> indicated that they will block final approval for any project by
going
back
> on this necessary part of the policy.
Unless one other member of Langcom gives their understanding, I
think
it wise not to comment to this part of your statement.
And I take it strangely you speak without clarification as whom
you
are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain individual on his individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom.
Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on consensus?
> Again, there are two parts to the policy. > * When a language is starting it only needs to do the most used
messages
of
> MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language. > * When a project request is a subsequent project for a language,
all
> MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by the
WMF
are
> required.
[snip]
> It is exactly for languages that use a different script that it
is
vital
> that the localisation is done completely. For these languages
there
is
no
> chance that the English word is the same or similar.
Your argument here again become pointless. "A different script" is unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric. Even if I
assume
you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki default = latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight of differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not latin)
and
Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek is not English word.
Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for your
favor
to Greek project.
> MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our information.
It
needs as
> much tender loving care as we give to our content. MediaWiki
receives a
lot
> of tender loving care from the developers. We can show our
appreciation
by
> making sure that their software is properly understood and
appreciated
by
> all its users not only for the people that know English and get
everything
> by default.
Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if Pathoschild
pointed
out flows in your wording?
> Thanks, > GerardM > > On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild)
<pathoschild@gmail.com >
> wrote: > > > > Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for Japanese,
and
it
> > seems that this problem is caused by a change that happened a
few
days
> > ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought them
up
for
> > subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on them,
because
it
> > didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much
difference).
I'll
> > keep you updated off-list. > > > > Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that page)
those
> > numbers are only there to give a general idea of the
discussion.
Since
> > they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most of
the
time.
> > > > -- > > Yours cordially, > > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > _______________________________________________ > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
--
KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, For the record the time from a proposed *final* approval to publishing the approval is at least two weeks. The fact that Japanese Wikiveristy show as *conditionally approved* is only demonstrating the fact that there are no obstacles from finally approving a project. At this stage we do not look at all at the localisation.
A good example is Sranan Tongo. They have been conditionally approved and are working hard and doing a great job on their localisation. At the time of final approval when we consider eligibility for final approval we look at the localisation for real. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 2:17 PM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Jerome Banal < jerome.banal@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly don't want to sit between you guys but just want to
highlight
something that I think I understood (but might be wrong) from Gerard's writings and that you may have missed:
It seems to me that the Greek project has been under examination before
the
change in policy that creates this new stronger requirement, whereas the Japanese has been examined after this change.
[show] Wikiversity Greek 3 Approved 10-Jan-2008 [show] Wikiversity Japanese 2 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007
And it was January 5 that GerardM told Japanese Wikiversity to localize all files.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWik...
I am afraid your chronology is anachronistic and not based on the fact.
It's not that the two projects are considered differently under the same rules, it is that they are considered with different rules because the
rules
have changed (for every project that has not been examined yet,
including
any additional Greek project that may come after that one) between the
two
requests.
Now, I might be wrong; This is not very well mentioned in Gerard's mails
but
I think it is hinted.
Not taking any position for or against that change in rule :-)
Kind regards, Jerome
2008/1/15, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com>:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I tried to point out to you personally how the policy is consistent
in
time.
I also explained why the policy is reasonable. As I have said the
same
things now several times, I do not want to repeat the things
publicly
again
unless there is a new point to clarify.
It is your wishes not mine. And if you think it is enough to persuade me to cover your inequity for all Japanese people involved into Wiversity sorry I disagree.
There is no reason to hide it in a cupboard. And I esteem
transparency.
And if there is any new point - you still haven't provide why inequity
between Greeks and Japanese justified.
Because of my respect to you I have endeavoured to word things differently and more personally. I do not
do
that
for many others. :)
- I don't have an interest to discuss with you as individual. I ask
Langcom for their opinion as Wikimedia Committee. Not you individual. Hence your wish for private conversation is irrelevant. 2. As a committee member, I rather wish you esteem the all Wikiversity people, not your preferring individuals. And as a committee member you
should do, imo.
PS my name is Gerard not Gerald :)
Sorry, it is hard for native Japanese speaker to distinguish them.
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Back to foundation-l.
Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in that
you didn't respond any of my specific questions.
I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency in GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is his standpoint?
In this context what means a privately sent mail?
In both points a reasonable public clear response in an
appropriate
manner will be appreciated.
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, The policy was recently changed. All the languages that were at
that
time
approved or were in the process of being approved do not have to
comply
with
the new standard. The process of being approved starts when a
member
of
the
langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for a
project.
This
is often communicated privately with people representing the new
project.
We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for
Japanese
...
without full localisation important messages will not be
available
and
consequently when new software is introduced there will be a lot
of
uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an
exension.
They
are
extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require any
extension
messages for a first project in a language because we trust the
community to
do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these messages are
translated
in the local project.
With a second project in a language it becomes even more
important
that
the
localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for the
new
requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation. When
the
localisation is only done in the biggest project. The smaller
projects
lose
out.
I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to improve
the
localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the policy
and
the
hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things
have
already
improved quite substantially over the last few months.
Thanks, Gerard
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
wrote: > > Hoi, > > Several members of the language committee are extremely
unhappy
with
> > Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord.
They
have
> > indicated that they will block final approval for any
project by
going
back > > on this necessary part of the policy. > > Unless one other member of Langcom gives their understanding,
I
think
> it wise not to comment to this part of your statement. > > And I take it strangely you speak without clarification as
whom
you
> are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain individual on
his
> individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom. > > Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on consensus? > > > > Again, there are two parts to the policy. > > * When a language is starting it only needs to do the most
used
messages
of > > MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language. > > * When a project request is a subsequent project for a
language,
all
> > MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used by
the
WMF
are
> > required. > > [snip] > > > > It is exactly for languages that use a different script that
it
is
vital
> > that the localisation is done completely. For these
languages
there
is
no > > chance that the English word is the same or similar. > > Your argument here again become pointless. "A different
script" is
> unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric. Even if
I
assume
> you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki
default =
> latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight of > differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not
latin)
and
> Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek is
not
> English word. > > Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for your
favor
> to Greek project. > > > > MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our
information.
It
needs as > > much tender loving care as we give to our content. MediaWiki
receives a
lot > > of tender loving care from the developers. We can show our
appreciation
by > > making sure that their software is properly understood and
appreciated
by > > all its users not only for the people that know English and
get
everything > > by default. > > Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if Pathoschild
pointed
> out flows in your wording? > > > > > Thanks, > > GerardM > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) <pathoschild@gmail.com > > > wrote: > > > > > > > Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for
Japanese,
and
it
> > > seems that this problem is caused by a change that
happened a
few
days
> > > ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought
them
up
for
> > > subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on them,
because
it
> > > didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much
difference).
I'll
> > > keep you updated off-list. > > > > > > Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that
page)
those
> > > numbers are only there to give a general idea of the
discussion.
Since
> > > they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most
of
the
time.
> > > > > > -- > > > Yours cordially, > > > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > > > -- > KIZU Naoko > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) > Quote of the Day (English):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> > _______________________________________________ > > > > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
--
KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
I think now (for a week or so already) instead of "conditionally approved" they use the term "eligible", which in my opinion better states what has been done. The procedure of deeming "eligible" takes less than a day at this stage. (Though apparently there are some exceptions with discussion taken over months, like Karelian Wp).
Cheers, Yaroslav
Hoi, For the record the time from a proposed *final* approval to publishing the approval is at least two weeks. The fact that Japanese Wikiveristy show as *conditionally approved* is only demonstrating the fact that there are no obstacles from finally approving a project. At this stage we do not look at all at the localisation.
A good example is Sranan Tongo. They have been conditionally approved and are working hard and doing a great job on their localisation. At the time of final approval when we consider eligibility for final approval we look at the localisation for real. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 2:17 PM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Jerome Banal < jerome.banal@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly don't want to sit between you guys but just want to
highlight
something that I think I understood (but might be wrong) from Gerard's writings and that you may have missed:
It seems to me that the Greek project has been under examination
before the
change in policy that creates this new stronger requirement, whereas
the
Japanese has been examined after this change.
[show] Wikiversity Greek 3 Approved 10-Jan-2008 [show] Wikiversity Japanese 2 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007
And it was January 5 that GerardM told Japanese Wikiversity to localize all files.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWik...
I am afraid your chronology is anachronistic and not based on the fact.
It's not that the two projects are considered differently under the
same
rules, it is that they are considered with different rules because the
rules
have changed (for every project that has not been examined yet,
including
any additional Greek project that may come after that one) between the
two
requests.
Now, I might be wrong; This is not very well mentioned in Gerard's
mails but
I think it is hinted.
Not taking any position for or against that change in rule :-)
Kind regards, Jerome
2008/1/15, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com>:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
Hoi, I tried to point out to you personally how the policy is
consistent in
time.
I also explained why the policy is reasonable. As I have said the
same
things now several times, I do not want to repeat the things
publicly
again
unless there is a new point to clarify.
It is your wishes not mine. And if you think it is enough to
persuade
me to cover your inequity for all Japanese people involved into Wiversity sorry I disagree.
There is no reason to hide it in a cupboard. And I esteem
transparency.
And if there is any new point - you still haven't provide why
inequity
between Greeks and Japanese justified.
Because of my respect to you I have endeavoured to word things differently and more personally. I do
not do
that
for many others. :)
- I don't have an interest to discuss with you as individual. I ask
Langcom for their opinion as Wikimedia Committee. Not you
individual.
Hence your wish for private conversation is irrelevant. 2. As a committee member, I rather wish you esteem the all
Wikiversity
people, not your preferring individuals. And as a committee member
you
should do, imo.
PS my name is Gerard not Gerald :)
Sorry, it is hard for native Japanese speaker to distinguish them.
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote:
Back to foundation-l.
Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in that
you didn't respond any of my specific questions.
I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency in GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is
his
standpoint?
In this context what means a privately sent mail?
In both points a reasonable public clear response in an
appropriate
manner will be appreciated.
On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
> Hoi, > The policy was recently changed. All the languages that were
at that
time
> approved or were in the process of being approved do not have
to
comply
with
> the new standard. The process of being approved starts when a
member
of
the
> langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for a
project.
This
> is often communicated privately with people representing the
new
project.
> > We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for
Japanese
...
> without full localisation important messages will not be
available
and
> consequently when new software is introduced there will be a
lot of
> uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an
exension.
They
are
> extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require any
extension
> messages for a first project in a language because we trust
the
community to
> do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these messages
are
translated
> in the local project. > > With a second project in a language it becomes even more
important
that
the
> localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for the
new
> requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation.
When the
> localisation is only done in the biggest project. The smaller
projects
lose
> out. > > I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to
improve the
> localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the
policy and
the
> hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect. Things
have
already
> improved quite substantially over the last few months. > > Thanks, > Gerard > > Thanks, > Gerard > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> wrote: > > > Hoi, > > > Several members of the language committee are extremely
unhappy
with
> > > Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord.
They
have
> > > indicated that they will block final approval for any
project by
going
> back > > > on this necessary part of the policy. > > > > Unless one other member of Langcom gives their
understanding, I
think
> > it wise not to comment to this part of your statement. > > > > And I take it strangely you speak without clarification as
whom
you
> > are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain individual
on his
> > individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom. > > > > Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on consensus? > > > > > > > Again, there are two parts to the policy. > > > * When a language is starting it only needs to do the most
used
messages
> of > > > MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language. > > > * When a project request is a subsequent project for a
language,
all
> > > MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used
by the
WMF
are
> > > required. > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > It is exactly for languages that use a different script
that it
is
vital
> > > that the localisation is done completely. For these
languages
there
is
> no > > > chance that the English word is the same or similar. > > > > Your argument here again become pointless. "A different
script" is
> > unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric. Even
if I
assume
> > you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki
default =
> > latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight of > > differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not
latin)
and
> > Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek is
not
> > English word. > > > > Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for
your
favor
> > to Greek project. > > > > > > > MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our
information.
It
> needs as > > > much tender loving care as we give to our content.
MediaWiki
receives a
> lot > > > of tender loving care from the developers. We can show our
appreciation
> by > > > making sure that their software is properly understood and
appreciated
> by > > > all its users not only for the people that know English
and get
> everything > > > by default. > > > > Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if Pathoschild
pointed
> > out flows in your wording? > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > GerardM > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > <pathoschild@gmail.com > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for
Japanese,
and
it
> > > > seems that this problem is caused by a change that
happened a
few
days
> > > > ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought
them
up
for
> > > > subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on
them,
because
it
> > > > didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much
difference).
I'll
> > > > keep you updated off-list. > > > > > > > > Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that
page)
those
> > > > numbers are only there to give a general idea of the
discussion.
Since
> > > > they're manually updated, they're probably outdated most
of
the
time.
> > > > > > > > -- > > > > Yours cordially, > > > > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > KIZU Naoko > > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) > > Quote of the Day (English):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
--
KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi, What we have been doing is first getting the easy stuff out of the way. Easy in this means it is just ticking the requirements for "eligible". For your information this change of the name for the stage was introduced to give a better understanding of what this phase means. It is now being considered and at the end of the week it is likely to be the official label.
More and more what is left are the projects with technical or other issues. We have issues with Karelian because in the project proposal it says that you want to combine with other languages. This is currently something we are not happy with and the only route we see is for something like MultiLingual MediaWiki to be used. This software is still being developed and it is not ready for the big time. Berto has recently loaded it on one of his servers and is looking at it and is in contact with Charles, the developer on this.
Now a project being in discussion is better then us saying no. There are however a substantial grouping that we will have not said no to. This is what we are working on.. Please appreciate that we are volunteers. We are getting better tooling, we are becoming more helpful in pointing out our requirements but things are getting done slowly. When we say no, we want to have good arguments and it sometimes takes time to get consensus about this. NB The language committee is quite an extended group of people in many timezones.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 16, 2008 8:49 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I think now (for a week or so already) instead of "conditionally approved" they use the term "eligible", which in my opinion better states what has been done. The procedure of deeming "eligible" takes less than a day at this stage. (Though apparently there are some exceptions with discussion taken over months, like Karelian Wp).
Cheers, Yaroslav
Hoi, For the record the time from a proposed *final* approval to publishing
the
approval is at least two weeks. The fact that Japanese Wikiveristy show as *conditionally approved* is only demonstrating the fact that there are no obstacles
from
finally approving a project. At this stage we do not look at all at the localisation.
A good example is Sranan Tongo. They have been conditionally approved
and
are working hard and doing a great job on their localisation. At the
time
of final approval when we consider eligibility for final approval we look
at
the localisation for real. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 2:17 PM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Jerome Banal < jerome.banal@gmail.com> wrote:
I certainly don't want to sit between you guys but just want to
highlight
something that I think I understood (but might be wrong) from
Gerard's
writings and that you may have missed:
It seems to me that the Greek project has been under examination
before the
change in policy that creates this new stronger requirement, whereas
the
Japanese has been examined after this change.
[show] Wikiversity Greek 3 Approved 10-Jan-2008 [show] Wikiversity Japanese 2 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007
And it was January 5 that GerardM told Japanese Wikiversity to localize all files.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWik...
I am afraid your chronology is anachronistic and not based on the fact.
It's not that the two projects are considered differently under the
same
rules, it is that they are considered with different rules because
the
rules
have changed (for every project that has not been examined yet,
including
any additional Greek project that may come after that one) between
the
two
requests.
Now, I might be wrong; This is not very well mentioned in Gerard's
mails but
I think it is hinted.
Not taking any position for or against that change in rule :-)
Kind regards, Jerome
2008/1/15, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com>:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote:
Hoi, I tried to point out to you personally how the policy is
consistent in
time.
I also explained why the policy is reasonable. As I have said the
same
things now several times, I do not want to repeat the things
publicly
again
unless there is a new point to clarify.
It is your wishes not mine. And if you think it is enough to
persuade
me to cover your inequity for all Japanese people involved into Wiversity sorry I disagree.
There is no reason to hide it in a cupboard. And I esteem
transparency.
And if there is any new point - you still haven't provide why
inequity
between Greeks and Japanese justified.
Because of my respect to you I have endeavoured to word things differently and more personally. I do
not do
that
for many others. :)
- I don't have an interest to discuss with you as individual. I
ask
Langcom for their opinion as Wikimedia Committee. Not you
individual.
Hence your wish for private conversation is irrelevant. 2. As a committee member, I rather wish you esteem the all
Wikiversity
people, not your preferring individuals. And as a committee member
you
should do, imo.
PS my name is Gerard not Gerald :)
Sorry, it is hard for native Japanese speaker to distinguish them.
Thanks, Gerard
On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote: > > > > Back to foundation-l. > > Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in that
> you didn't respond any of my specific questions. > > I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency
in
> GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is
his
> standpoint? > > In this context what means a privately sent mail? > > In both points a reasonable public clear response in an
appropriate
> manner will be appreciated. > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote: > > Hoi, > > The policy was recently changed. All the languages that were
at that
time > > approved or were in the process of being approved do not have
to
comply
with > > the new standard. The process of being approved starts when a
member
of
the > > langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for a
project.
This > > is often communicated privately with people representing the
new
project. > > > > We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for
Japanese
...
> > without full localisation important messages will not be
available
and
> > consequently when new software is introduced there will be a
lot of
> > uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an
exension.
They
are > > extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require any
extension
> > messages for a first project in a language because we trust
the
community to > > do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these messages
are
translated > > in the local project. > > > > With a second project in a language it becomes even more
important
that
the > > localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for the
new
> > requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation.
When the
> > localisation is only done in the biggest project. The smaller
projects
lose > > out. > > > > I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to
improve the
> > localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the
policy and
the
> > hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect.
Things
have
already > > improved quite substantially over the last few months. > > > > Thanks, > > Gerard > > > > Thanks, > > Gerard > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen <
gerard.meijssen@gmail.com>
> > wrote: > > > > Hoi, > > > > Several members of the language committee are extremely
unhappy
with
> > > > Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own accord.
They
have
> > > > indicated that they will block final approval for any
project by
going > > back > > > > on this necessary part of the policy. > > > > > > Unless one other member of Langcom gives their
understanding, I
think
> > > it wise not to comment to this part of your statement. > > > > > > And I take it strangely you speak without clarification as
whom
you
> > > are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain individual
on his
> > > individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom. > > > > > > Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on consensus? > > > > > > > > > > Again, there are two parts to the policy. > > > > * When a language is starting it only needs to do the
most
used
messages > > of > > > > MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language. > > > > * When a project request is a subsequent project for a
language,
all
> > > > MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension used
by the
WMF
are > > > > required. > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > It is exactly for languages that use a different script
that it
is
vital > > > > that the localisation is done completely. For these
languages
there
is > > no > > > > chance that the English word is the same or similar. > > > > > > Your argument here again become pointless. "A different
script" is
> > > unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric. Even
if I
assume
> > > you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki
default =
> > > latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight of > > > differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not
latin)
and
> > > Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek
is
not
> > > English word. > > > > > > Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for
your
favor
> > > to Greek project. > > > > > > > > > > MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our
information.
It
> > needs as > > > > much tender loving care as we give to our content.
MediaWiki
receives a > > lot > > > > of tender loving care from the developers. We can show
our
appreciation > > by > > > > making sure that their software is properly understood
and
appreciated > > by > > > > all its users not only for the people that know English
and get
> > everything > > > > by default. > > > > > > Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if
Pathoschild
pointed
> > > out flows in your wording? > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > <pathoschild@gmail.com > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for
Japanese,
and
it > > > > > seems that this problem is caused by a change that
happened a
few
days > > > > > ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and brought
them
up
for > > > > > subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on
them,
because
it > > > > > didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much
difference).
I'll > > > > > keep you updated off-list. > > > > > > > > > > Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on that
page)
those > > > > > numbers are only there to give a general idea of the
discussion.
Since > > > > > they're manually updated, they're probably outdated
most
of
the
time. > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > Yours cordially, > > > > > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > KIZU Naoko > > > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) > > > Quote of the Day (English):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > KIZU Naoko > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) > Quote of the Day (English):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> > _______________________________________________ > > foundation-l mailing list > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Hoi Gerard,
I am absolutely fine with what you write, and I think making "eligible" an official policy is a good thing since it states the situation more clearly. (Actually, I thought it is already an official policy). If the project is "eligible" it does not mean that it is "approved" by any means, conditionally or not.
I would not agree that Karelian proposal combines several languages, and there is an extensive disussion at the point at the discussion page, but this is clearly not a topic for the foundation-l.
Cheers Yaroslav
Hoi, What we have been doing is first getting the easy stuff out of the way. Easy in this means it is just ticking the requirements for "eligible". For your information this change of the name for the stage was introduced to give a better understanding of what this phase means. It is now being considered and at the end of the week it is likely to be the official label.
More and more what is left are the projects with technical or other issues. We have issues with Karelian because in the project proposal it says that you want to combine with other languages. This is currently something we are not happy with and the only route we see is for something like MultiLingual MediaWiki to be used. This software is still being developed and it is not ready for the big time. Berto has recently loaded it on one of his servers and is looking at it and is in contact with Charles, the developer on this.
Now a project being in discussion is better then us saying no. There are however a substantial grouping that we will have not said no to. This is what we are working on.. Please appreciate that we are volunteers. We are getting better tooling, we are becoming more helpful in pointing out our requirements but things are getting done slowly. When we say no, we want to have good arguments and it sometimes takes time to get consensus about this. NB The language committee is quite an extended group of people in many timezones.
Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 16, 2008 8:49 AM, Yaroslav M. Blanter putevod@mccme.ru wrote:
I think now (for a week or so already) instead of "conditionally approved" they use the term "eligible", which in my opinion better states what has been done. The procedure of deeming "eligible" takes less than a day at this stage. (Though apparently there are some exceptions with discussion taken over months, like Karelian Wp).
Cheers, Yaroslav
Hoi, For the record the time from a proposed *final* approval to publishing
the
approval is at least two weeks. The fact that Japanese Wikiveristy show as *conditionally approved* is only demonstrating the fact that there are no obstacles
from
finally approving a project. At this stage we do not look at all at
the
localisation.
A good example is Sranan Tongo. They have been conditionally approved
and
are working hard and doing a great job on their localisation. At the
time
of final approval when we consider eligibility for final approval we look
at
the localisation for real. Thanks, GerardM
On Jan 15, 2008 2:17 PM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jan 15, 2008 9:09 PM, Jerome Banal < jerome.banal@gmail.com>
wrote:
I certainly don't want to sit between you guys but just want to
highlight
something that I think I understood (but might be wrong) from
Gerard's
writings and that you may have missed:
It seems to me that the Greek project has been under examination
before the
change in policy that creates this new stronger requirement,
whereas
the
Japanese has been examined after this change.
[show] Wikiversity Greek 3 Approved 10-Jan-2008 [show] Wikiversity Japanese 2 2 Verified as eligible 19-Dec-2007
And it was January 5 that GerardM told Japanese Wikiversity to localize all files.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Requests_for_new_languages%2FWik...
I am afraid your chronology is anachronistic and not based on the
fact.
It's not that the two projects are considered differently under the
same
rules, it is that they are considered with different rules because
the
rules
have changed (for every project that has not been examined yet,
including
any additional Greek project that may come after that one) between
the
two
requests.
Now, I might be wrong; This is not very well mentioned in Gerard's
mails but
I think it is hinted.
Not taking any position for or against that change in rule :-)
Kind regards, Jerome
2008/1/15, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com>:
On Jan 15, 2008 8:25 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
wrote: > Hoi, > I tried to point out to you personally how the policy is
consistent in
time. > I also explained why the policy is reasonable. As I have said
the
same
> things now several times, I do not want to repeat the things
publicly
again > unless there is a new point to clarify.
It is your wishes not mine. And if you think it is enough to
persuade
me to cover your inequity for all Japanese people involved into Wiversity sorry I disagree.
There is no reason to hide it in a cupboard. And I esteem
transparency.
And if there is any new point - you still haven't provide why
inequity
between Greeks and Japanese justified.
> Because of my respect to you I have > endeavoured to word things differently and more personally. I
do
not do
that > for many others. :)
- I don't have an interest to discuss with you as individual. I
ask
Langcom for their opinion as Wikimedia Committee. Not you
individual.
Hence your wish for private conversation is irrelevant. 2. As a committee member, I rather wish you esteem the all
Wikiversity
people, not your preferring individuals. And as a committee
member
you
should do, imo.
> PS my name is Gerard not Gerald :)
Sorry, it is hard for native Japanese speaker to distinguish
them.
> Thanks, > Gerard > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 11:45 AM, Aphaia aphaia@gmail.com wrote: > > > > > > > > Back to foundation-l. > > > > Gerald, I have no idea why you mailed me privately and in
that
> > you didn't respond any of my specific questions. > > > > I think I tried to ask politely LangCom for the inconsistency
in
> > GeraldM's messages and ask GeraldM himself to clarify what is
his
> > standpoint? > > > > In this context what means a privately sent mail? > > > > In both points a reasonable public clear response in an
appropriate
> > manner will be appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 6:55 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen@gmail.com
> wrote: > > > Hoi, > > > The policy was recently changed. All the languages that
were
at that
> time > > > approved or were in the process of being approved do not
have
to
comply > with > > > the new standard. The process of being approved starts when
a
member
of > the > > > langcom asks other members of the langcom for approval for
a
project. > This > > > is often communicated privately with people representing
the
new
> project. > > > > > > We need full localisation for all languages. For Greek, for
Japanese
... > > > without full localisation important messages will not be
available
and > > > consequently when new software is introduced there will be
a
lot of
> > > uncertainty. The messages for Single User Logon are in an
exension.
They > are > > > extremely relevant when SUL goes life. We do not require
any
extension > > > messages for a first project in a language because we trust
the
> community to > > > do well and translate them in BetaWIki. Often these
messages
are
> translated > > > in the local project. > > > > > > With a second project in a language it becomes even more
important
that > the > > > localisation is done centrally and this is the reason for
the
new
> > > requirement. It is hard work to maintain the localisation.
When the
> > > localisation is only done in the biggest project. The
smaller
projects > lose > > > out. > > > > > > I hope you will appreciate that this policy only aims to
improve the
> > > localisation in all languages for us all. If anything the
policy and
the > > > hard work at BetaWiki have shown to have a good effect.
Things
have
> already > > > improved quite substantially over the last few months. > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Gerard > > > > > > Thanks, > > > Gerard > > > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 10:40 AM, Aphaia < aphaia@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 4:26 PM, Gerard Meijssen < gerard.meijssen@gmail.com> > > > wrote: > > > > > Hoi, > > > > > Several members of the language committee are extremely
unhappy
with > > > > > Pathoschild's sorry show of doing this on his own
accord.
They
have > > > > > indicated that they will block final approval for any
project by
> going > > > back > > > > > on this necessary part of the policy. > > > > > > > > Unless one other member of Langcom gives their
understanding, I
think > > > > it wise not to comment to this part of your statement. > > > > > > > > And I take it strangely you speak without clarification
as
whom
you > > > > are talking. I don't want an opinion of certain
individual
on his
> > > > individual basis. I asked opinion of Langcom. > > > > > > > > Do you speak here on behalf of Langcom based on
consensus?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Again, there are two parts to the policy. > > > > > * When a language is starting it only needs to do the
most
used
> messages > > > of > > > > > MediaWiki. This provides basic support for a language. > > > > > * When a project request is a subsequent project for a
language,
all > > > > > MediaWiki messages and the messages of the extension
used
by the
WMF > are > > > > > required. > > > > > > > > [snip] > > > > > > > > > > > > > It is exactly for languages that use a different script
that it
is > vital > > > > > that the localisation is done completely. For these
languages
there > is > > > no > > > > > chance that the English word is the same or similar. > > > > > > > > Your argument here again become pointless. "A different
script" is
> > > > unclear and a-certain-but-not-clear-language-centric.
Even
if I
assume > > > > you wanted to mean "a different language from MediaWiki
default =
> > > > latin script", it is still pointless and give no insight
of
> > > > differences Langcom set between Greek (Greek script, not
latin)
and > > > > Japanese (Kana and Kanji). And I would politely add Greek
is
not
> > > > English word. > > > > > > > > Shortly your argument doesn't provide any good reason for
your
favor > > > > to Greek project. > > > > > > > > > > > > > MediaWiki is an integral part of how we provide our
information.
It > > > needs as > > > > > much tender loving care as we give to our content.
MediaWiki
> receives a > > > lot > > > > > of tender loving care from the developers. We can show
our
> appreciation > > > by > > > > > making sure that their software is properly understood
and
> appreciated > > > by > > > > > all its users not only for the people that know English
and get
> > > everything > > > > > by default. > > > > > > > > Again I should ask you: who are we? Specially if
Pathoschild
pointed > > > > out flows in your wording? > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Thanks, > > > > > GerardM > > > > > > > > > > On Jan 15, 2008 12:08 AM, Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > > <pathoschild@gmail.com > > > > > > wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Aphaia, I'm sorry; I looked at the localization for
Japanese,
and > it > > > > > > seems that this problem is caused by a change that
happened a
few > days > > > > > > ago in the requirements. I've reverted them and
brought
them
up > for > > > > > > subcommittee discussion again (I hadn't commented on
them,
because > it > > > > > > didn't seem from the proposal that they'd make much difference). > I'll > > > > > > keep you updated off-list. > > > > > > > > > > > > Yaroslav, as far as I know (I don't participate on
that
page)
> those > > > > > > numbers are only there to give a general idea of the discussion. > Since > > > > > > they're manually updated, they're probably outdated
most
of
the > time. > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > Yours cordially, > > > > > > Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) > > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > > Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > > Unsubscribe: > http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > KIZU Naoko > > > > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) > > > > Quote of the Day (English):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> > > > > > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > > > Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > -- > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KIZU Naoko > > http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) > > Quote of the Day (English):
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
> > > > _______________________________________________ > > > > foundation-l mailing list > > foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org > > Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
> > > >
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe:
http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
-- KIZU Naoko http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese) Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
foundation-l mailing list foundation-l@lists.wikimedia.org Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
wikimedia-l@lists.wikimedia.org