On 21/05/06, Mark Williamson node.ue@gmail.com wrote: ...
It seems, that my attempts to reach some compromise on subject of disputable clauses in rules of Be: community failed. My final proposals and admins (EugeneZelenko) replies were (translated more or less verbatim from Be: talk):
1 Names of [allowed] orthographies are currently politically slanted and pejorative. So I suggested to change the clause to «...besides the common/standard/normative («school») orthography the alternative [orthography] is allowed (according to "БЕЛАРУСКІ КЛЯСЫЧНЫ ПРАВАПІС. Збор правілаў. Сучасная нармалізацыя", 2005 [the (first) book containing the rules of alternative orthography])". [To name standard orthography] «official» is not good, as this name has connotation of «non mandatory» in our cultural practice.»
2 Current rules mention alternative orthography as preferred. So I suggested to remedy this by putting clause 1.1 into separate rule on orthography referenced from all other rules [concerned with text].
I've got no clear reply from admins to these two proposals at all.
3 Currently categories are done only in (and forcibly re-done into) alternative orthography. Admin points out that there exists bug 3311 which prevents redirect of categories (therefore preventing making categories in both orthographies). I contended that in such a case the categories should be temporarily done only in standard orthography.
Admin disagreed completely, named my proposal «another POV», suggested poll in community. Eligibility will be apparently limited to persons already being authors of certain number of articles before the certain date.
4 Currently rules require asking «author of article» for permission in order to be able to edit article when editing involves «changing the orthography of the article». I suggested cancelling this requirement and making one sentence the minimally possible unit of text in orthography different from rest of the text (allowing mix of orthographies in one text therefore).
Admin and supporter (MaximLitvin) contend, propose to instead allow changing of the orthography of the complete article, together with keeping one orthography both in text and references (?!), and conditioning the very possibility of such a change by amount of text being newly added (variously, by some % of existing or by added being bigger than existing).
I can't make myself to believe any more that those folks are acting in good faith, and I feel that the further discussion on rules in Be: would be pointless. Sorry to drop this in your lap in this manner, but it definitely seems the issue must go in your hands now.
-regards