You are utterly barking up the wrong tree. Complying with standards does not mean that you cannot have things outside of the standards. It means that you comply with the standards as far as they go. There is no reason at all not to have new projects when these projects comply with what the Wikimedia Foundation accepts as it's policy for that type of project.
And from what I have seen so far, it's not impressive.
Your assumptions are blinding you. It is also rich that you use "the community" as an argument. This same community has asked for the closure of wikipedias that you fought tooth and nail to preserve. In a previous
Yes, the difference is that I am not a member of the language subcommittee. If I were, I would obviously have to put aside my personal feelings on issues and come to more objective conclusions based solely on evidence rather than emotion and instinct.
And remind me of these "Wikipedias"... I was troubled by the sudden deletion of the Klingon Wikipedia, but I did not fight "tooth and nail to preserve" it. I have fought for the preservation of mo.wp, but then, the history of that is not as one-sided as you perceive; see the Meta page Proposals for closing projects, the vote is currently at 90-50 (rather than 90-0). Although, perhaps a total of 10 individuals who participated in that vote (at maximum) were Moldovans. Majority were Romanians and Russians.
post you were talking about political reasons to do certain things. Political arguments are the ultimate POINT OF VIEW. When we are to come
Apparently your understanding of what I said is lacking. I said that YOUR solution shows a political statement, while the solution currently endorsed by the majority
to a reasonable policy for new projects, flash crowds and political arguments will have to be considered of little importance because they either deny or ask for things that have little linguistic merit. Remember, what we aim to achieve; bringing knowledge to all people in their own language.
Well, last time it was proposed such draconian measures as seem to be favoured by the Subcommittee as regards the approval of new languages, no consensus was reached by the community. Wikis created since that time, though, have had a reasonably high rate of success. Now, your subcommittee wants to kill what we have going by imposing requirements and restrictions which are going to be difficult for most languages to meet. Consider that most of the most recently-created Wikis, including the most successful among them (Zazaki, Siberian) had, at the beginning, only 1 or 2 contributors, contrary to the new Incubator policy requiring 5 users _before a test may even be started_!
Originally, such measures were in fact favoured by the community, during the extensive arguments following my request for a Sicilian WP (which, btw, is now a smashing success), but it appears based on votes at Proposals for closing projects that the general idea regarding inactive Wikis is to let them be the way they are, and a more liberal policy regarding creation of Wikis is widely accepted (only require two native speakers, sometimes Test-WP).
I do not have a problem with a Subcommittee deciding controversial issues such as Belarusan or Moldovan. However, I do have a problem with a committee (rather than the community) regulating new language creation.
Yes, the current procedure is subject to flashmobs, but these have only occurred in a handful of cases (Padonki, Siberian, Zazaki, Murcian, Andalus). I think that, besides that, it works very well -- most of the voters are intelligent people capable of checking to see if a language really exists, what reasons it might deserve a Wiki or not, etc.
I know that I was not even considered for the subcommittee due to my history, my style and personality, and my controversiality. However, this does not mean that my words are worthless.
Nearly all of the people who are most active in the process of new language requests were, in fact, excluded altogether. These are a crowd of people with experience, a good level of expertise in languages (Steinbach, Arbeo, Jade Night...), and ability to decide objectively.
To repeat and conclude; compliance with standards does not prevent the creation of new version of WMF projects.
Yes, but it does affect neutrality.