-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ok, Rob's starting to clear out some of the FlaggedRevs setup requests, now that we've cleaned up some of the configuration files.
For today we've set up en.wikibooks.org as requested: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14618
If everything's going smoothly, we'll start chugging through the rest over the coming days.
- -- brion
Hoi, While you are at it, please have a look at bug 15013... It has been waiting today for 121 days.. 121 days after registering in Bugzilla. If there are any issues please let them be known.
https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=15013
Thanks, GerardM
On Sat, Nov 15, 2008 at 2:27 AM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Ok, Rob's starting to clear out some of the FlaggedRevs setup requests, now that we've cleaned up some of the configuration files.
For today we've set up en.wikibooks.org as requested: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14618
If everything's going smoothly, we'll start chugging through the rest over the coming days.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkeJY0ACgkQwRnhpk1wk47VBQCgjuIHXXmv2enbTbRFaMydX2x7 g2kAoLp4mFC4j75Z9pzZQfnk79t4KI39 =QgJZ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, While you are at it, please have a look at bug 15013... It has been waiting today for 121 days.. 121 days after registering in Bugzilla. If there are any issues please let them be known.
1) The bug was improperly labeled and could not be found when searching specifically for the request. This likely didn't help it to receive any attention! :)
2) Can you show us the language committee's open discussion and consensus summary in favor of this setup?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives shows no evidence of any official discussion nor record of a decision.
The unofficial discussion I do see at: http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian... seems very inconclusive.
I've been told that only two members of the committee discussed and approved it, which doesn't seem to match with the spirit of the committee, which has 11 members per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee
The reason we created a language subcommittee in the first place was to have an official body in which several people could have a discussion, come to a consensus among themselves, and hammer out a solid conclusion instead of letting these things simmer on for ages with different opinions remaining open.
If that's not clearly going on, then we should make sure the committee gets back on track.
- -- brion
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, While you are at it, please have a look at bug 15013... It has been waiting today for 121 days.. 121 days after registering in Bugzilla. If there are any issues please let them be known.
- The bug was improperly labeled and could not be found when searching
specifically for the request. This likely didn't help it to receive any attention! :)
Bit of offtopic, but are there actually any howtos how to correctly label your bugs e.g. for config changes, wiki creation etc. so that these do not get overlooked?
Marco
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Marco Schuster wrote:
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, While you are at it, please have a look at bug 15013... It has been waiting today for 121 days.. 121 days after registering in Bugzilla. If there are any issues please let them be known.
- The bug was improperly labeled and could not be found when searching
specifically for the request. This likely didn't help it to receive any attention! :)
Bit of offtopic, but are there actually any howtos how to correctly label your bugs e.g. for config changes, wiki creation etc. so that these do not get overlooked?
Actually mention the language name and language code so it can be found when searched for.
- -- brion
Actually mention the language name and language code so it can be found when searched for.
Why would you be searching for it? If you already know about the request you don't need the bug report at all. Surely whoever's job it is to create projects should just be going through the relevant component and seeing what projects need creating? Is that not the whole point of having a component system?
Although this is a tech list and I do not want to move the discussion to this list. However, creating a new wiki for a lang that is not recognized officially by any real-time authority might open the door wide for other groups of people asking for their own new languages and Wikipedia would have to accept to be fair with everyone or to refuse and people might perceive it as privilege for one group over the other.
I tried a few searches on Google for websites written using in this language and I could not find any popularity for this language. So who is going to use it on Wikipedia then if no-one is using it on the whole internet.
bilal
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Thomas Dalton thomas.dalton@gmail.comwrote:
Actually mention the language name and language code so it can be found when searched for.
Why would you be searching for it? If you already know about the request you don't need the bug report at all. Surely whoever's job it is to create projects should just be going through the relevant component and seeing what projects need creating? Is that not the whole point of having a component system?
Hoi, Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:55 PM, Bilal Abdul Kader bilalak@gmail.comwrote:
Although this is a tech list and I do not want to move the discussion to this list. However, creating a new wiki for a lang that is not recognized officially by any real-time authority might open the door wide for other groups of people asking for their own new languages and Wikipedia would have to accept to be fair with everyone or to refuse and people might perceive it as privilege for one group over the other.
I tried a few searches on Google for websites written using in this language and I could not find any popularity for this language. So who is going to use it on Wikipedia then if no-one is using it on the whole internet.
bilal
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 4:46 PM, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton@gmail.com
wrote:
Actually mention the language name and language code so it can be found when searched for.
Why would you be searching for it? If you already know about the request you don't need the bug report at all. Surely whoever's job it is to create projects should just be going through the relevant component and seeing what projects need creating? Is that not the whole point of having a component system?
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.
Well, so is Klingon! :) An ISO-639-3 listing doesn't by itself confer appropriateness for use; it merely confirms that the language can be referred to with a standardized code.
Appropriateness for use in a Wikimedia project tends to vary quite a bit; in some areas we avoid creating wikis for national variants of larger language groups, in other areas we create a lot of national and subnational variants.
Since this is a written medium, national or subnational language variants are usually most controversial where there isn't a standard orthography and the requested form is not commonly used in written communication. (On the other hand, even extinct languages are frequently given wikis where they have a long written historical context.)
I'm only asking about arz specifically because:
a) It's recently come up as we're tidying up the backlog, so it's at the top of the pile
b) I've gotten specific questions about the approval process for arz, so we're making sure everything's clear before setting it up
c) The public discussion I have seen was not conclusive, and it's not yet clear that the langcom discussion was conclusive either.
If the discussion was conclusive, then we'll be happy to finish it up. But since I'd rather not go through this every time we have another wiki to create, I want to make sure that the process is clear.
- -- brion
Hoi, There is a strong sentiment against allowing for the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia by those who prefer a unified Arabic Wikipedia. They have used all kinds of arguments but in essence they refuse others to work on what is after all a recognised separate language. When they argue that it will fracture the effort for the Arabic Wikipedia, they forget that it is not their time and effort they are directing. When they argue that not much is written in Egyptian Arabic, they forget that this is no different for many languages like Limburgian as well. Their problem is that their view of a world where everyone speaks the same language is at odds with how it is perceived others.
There is a request for an Egyptian Arabic Wiktionary in the pipe line and with 99,81% for the MediaWiki messages and 97.51% they have demonstrated their comitment to this effort. It is all the more remarkable because they do not have their Wikipedia yet. It is a clear testament to their wish to do well for their language.
The point of the language committee is that it has the remit to decide on these issues.Consequently there are situations where some will not agree what it is that the committee decides and it means that there will be no public consensus. This is to be expected and accepted.
Brion, when you have specific questions as to the approval of Egyptian Arabic, raise them. What you are doing is calling the process itself into doubt. As it is clear that you are not familiar with the process in the first place, the policy as it is does not allow for extinct and constructed languages and you write that such languages are created, I think you should create the arz.wikipedia.org.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.
Well, so is Klingon! :) An ISO-639-3 listing doesn't by itself confer appropriateness for use; it merely confirms that the language can be referred to with a standardized code.
Appropriateness for use in a Wikimedia project tends to vary quite a bit; in some areas we avoid creating wikis for national variants of larger language groups, in other areas we create a lot of national and subnational variants.
Since this is a written medium, national or subnational language variants are usually most controversial where there isn't a standard orthography and the requested form is not commonly used in written communication. (On the other hand, even extinct languages are frequently given wikis where they have a long written historical context.)
I'm only asking about arz specifically because:
a) It's recently come up as we're tidying up the backlog, so it's at the top of the pile
b) I've gotten specific questions about the approval process for arz, so we're making sure everything's clear before setting it up
c) The public discussion I have seen was not conclusive, and it's not yet clear that the langcom discussion was conclusive either.
If the discussion was conclusive, then we'll be happy to finish it up. But since I'd rather not go through this every time we have another wiki to create, I want to make sure that the process is clear.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkgpXgACgkQwRnhpk1wk44c0wCfU/WtGWRLJU3qi30AoAP3RQFz IgAAoLlrtyVqCP6GmPxy4ZCxT7vyJiGC =A5X/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hi Gerard, This will be my last contribution to this topic but it seems you are taking the issue emotionally. Brion is not asking for more than a due process. I really do not see the argument of pro-masri or anti-masri in his words.
Wikipedia should not be used to advance nationalist causes. Rather, it provides an open medium to disseminate information and let people collaborate to build an encyclopedia that others can use.
bilal
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, There is a strong sentiment against allowing for the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia by those who prefer a unified Arabic Wikipedia. They have used all kinds of arguments but in essence they refuse others to work on what is after all a recognised separate language. When they argue that it will fracture the effort for the Arabic Wikipedia, they forget that it is not their time and effort they are directing. When they argue that not much is written in Egyptian Arabic, they forget that this is no different for many languages like Limburgian as well. Their problem is that their view of a world where everyone speaks the same language is at odds with how it is perceived others.
There is a request for an Egyptian Arabic Wiktionary in the pipe line and with 99,81% for the MediaWiki messages and 97.51% they have demonstrated their comitment to this effort. It is all the more remarkable because they do not have their Wikipedia yet. It is a clear testament to their wish to do well for their language.
The point of the language committee is that it has the remit to decide on these issues.Consequently there are situations where some will not agree what it is that the committee decides and it means that there will be no public consensus. This is to be expected and accepted.
Brion, when you have specific questions as to the approval of Egyptian Arabic, raise them. What you are doing is calling the process itself into doubt. As it is clear that you are not familiar with the process in the first place, the policy as it is does not allow for extinct and constructed languages and you write that such languages are created, I think you should create the arz.wikipedia.org.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.
Well, so is Klingon! :) An ISO-639-3 listing doesn't by itself confer appropriateness for use; it merely confirms that the language can be referred to with a standardized code.
Appropriateness for use in a Wikimedia project tends to vary quite a bit; in some areas we avoid creating wikis for national variants of larger language groups, in other areas we create a lot of national and subnational variants.
Since this is a written medium, national or subnational language variants are usually most controversial where there isn't a standard orthography and the requested form is not commonly used in written communication. (On the other hand, even extinct languages are frequently given wikis where they have a long written historical context.)
I'm only asking about arz specifically because:
a) It's recently come up as we're tidying up the backlog, so it's at the top of the pile
b) I've gotten specific questions about the approval process for arz, so we're making sure everything's clear before setting it up
c) The public discussion I have seen was not conclusive, and it's not yet clear that the langcom discussion was conclusive either.
If the discussion was conclusive, then we'll be happy to finish it up. But since I'd rather not go through this every time we have another wiki to create, I want to make sure that the process is clear.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkgpXgACgkQwRnhpk1wk44c0wCfU/WtGWRLJU3qi30AoAP3RQFz IgAAoLlrtyVqCP6GmPxy4ZCxT7vyJiGC =A5X/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hello,
Gerard is emotional because for him somehow all boils down to freedom of speech. I had an argument earlier with him on foundation-I and questioned the process and he would repeatedly go to "why do you want to inhibit the freedom of others when no one is trying to do the same to you". I tried to point out this is pretty irrelevant to what I am asking to no avail. I asked whether I could see the deliberation of LangCom regarding this case when he said 'Langcom took into account all the issues you raised while making a decision' but he said those are confidential (even Ting raised an objection to that!), and then later on said the 'deliberations' consisted of him declaring it on the mailing list and no one objected.
Regardless of the issue of Masry, I for one would like to see more transparency out of langcom, I would like to see the deliberations of its members archived somewhere and I would like to see what are the rules of discussions (like what Brion said about the minimum of ppl required for a discussion). Posting a proposal and recieving no answer doesnt necessarily mean everyone considered the subject, it may also mean that they didnt. Also, if that is your process, how do you determine when a member of langcom becomes inactive?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader bilalak@gmail.comwrote:
Hi Gerard, This will be my last contribution to this topic but it seems you are taking the issue emotionally. Brion is not asking for more than a due process. I really do not see the argument of pro-masri or anti-masri in his words.
Wikipedia should not be used to advance nationalist causes. Rather, it provides an open medium to disseminate information and let people collaborate to build an encyclopedia that others can use.
bilal
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, There is a strong sentiment against allowing for the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia by those who prefer a unified Arabic Wikipedia. They have used all kinds of arguments but in essence they refuse others to work on what is after all a recognised separate language. When they argue that it will fracture the effort for the Arabic Wikipedia, they forget that it is not their time and effort they are directing. When they argue that not much
is
written in Egyptian Arabic, they forget that this is no different for
many
languages like Limburgian as well. Their problem is that their view of a world where everyone speaks the same language is at odds with how it is perceived others.
There is a request for an Egyptian Arabic Wiktionary in the pipe line and with 99,81% for the MediaWiki messages and 97.51% they have demonstrated their comitment to this effort. It is all the more remarkable because
they
do not have their Wikipedia yet. It is a clear testament to their wish to do well for their language.
The point of the language committee is that it has the remit to decide on these issues.Consequently there are situations where some will not agree what it is that the committee decides and it means that there will be no public consensus. This is to be expected and accepted.
Brion, when you have specific questions as to the approval of Egyptian Arabic, raise them. What you are doing is calling the process itself into doubt. As it is clear that you are not familiar with the process in the first place, the policy as it is does not allow for extinct and
constructed
languages and you write that such languages are created, I think you
should
create the arz.wikipedia.org.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.
Well, so is Klingon! :) An ISO-639-3 listing doesn't by itself confer appropriateness for use; it merely confirms that the language can be referred to with a standardized code.
Appropriateness for use in a Wikimedia project tends to vary quite a bit; in some areas we avoid creating wikis for national variants of larger language groups, in other areas we create a lot of national and subnational variants.
Since this is a written medium, national or subnational language variants are usually most controversial where there isn't a standard orthography and the requested form is not commonly used in written communication. (On the other hand, even extinct languages are
frequently
given wikis where they have a long written historical context.)
I'm only asking about arz specifically because:
a) It's recently come up as we're tidying up the backlog, so it's at
the
top of the pile
b) I've gotten specific questions about the approval process for arz,
so
we're making sure everything's clear before setting it up
c) The public discussion I have seen was not conclusive, and it's not yet clear that the langcom discussion was conclusive either.
If the discussion was conclusive, then we'll be happy to finish it up. But since I'd rather not go through this every time we have another
wiki
to create, I want to make sure that the process is clear.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkgpXgACgkQwRnhpk1wk44c0wCfU/WtGWRLJU3qi30AoAP3RQFz IgAAoLlrtyVqCP6GmPxy4ZCxT7vyJiGC =A5X/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hoi, I requested an opinion from the other members of the language committee. They came with the answer that Egyptian Arabic should be considered eligible. I am completely ok with this result, but for the record I asked for an opinion and got a favourable decision. The notion that I forwarded an opinion is not correct. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Muhammad Alsebaey shipmaster@gmail.comwrote:
Hello,
Gerard is emotional because for him somehow all boils down to freedom of speech. I had an argument earlier with him on foundation-I and questioned the process and he would repeatedly go to "why do you want to inhibit the freedom of others when no one is trying to do the same to you". I tried to point out this is pretty irrelevant to what I am asking to no avail. I asked whether I could see the deliberation of LangCom regarding this case when he said 'Langcom took into account all the issues you raised while making a decision' but he said those are confidential (even Ting raised an objection to that!), and then later on said the 'deliberations' consisted of him declaring it on the mailing list and no one objected.
Regardless of the issue of Masry, I for one would like to see more transparency out of langcom, I would like to see the deliberations of its members archived somewhere and I would like to see what are the rules of discussions (like what Brion said about the minimum of ppl required for a discussion). Posting a proposal and recieving no answer doesnt necessarily mean everyone considered the subject, it may also mean that they didnt. Also, if that is your process, how do you determine when a member of langcom becomes inactive?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader <bilalak@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Gerard, This will be my last contribution to this topic but it seems you are
taking
the issue emotionally. Brion is not asking for more than a due process. I really do not see the argument of pro-masri or anti-masri in his words.
Wikipedia should not be used to advance nationalist causes. Rather, it provides an open medium to disseminate information and let people collaborate to build an encyclopedia that others can use.
bilal
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, There is a strong sentiment against allowing for the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia by those who prefer a unified Arabic Wikipedia. They have
used
all kinds of arguments but in essence they refuse others to work on what is after all a recognised separate language. When they argue that it will fracture the effort for the Arabic Wikipedia, they forget that it is
not
their time and effort they are directing. When they argue that not much
is
written in Egyptian Arabic, they forget that this is no different for
many
languages like Limburgian as well. Their problem is that their view of
a
world where everyone speaks the same language is at odds with how it is perceived others.
There is a request for an Egyptian Arabic Wiktionary in the pipe line
and
with 99,81% for the MediaWiki messages and 97.51% they have
demonstrated
their comitment to this effort. It is all the more remarkable because
they
do not have their Wikipedia yet. It is a clear testament to their wish
to
do well for their language.
The point of the language committee is that it has the remit to decide
on
these issues.Consequently there are situations where some will not
agree
what it is that the committee decides and it means that there will be
no
public consensus. This is to be expected and accepted.
Brion, when you have specific questions as to the approval of Egyptian Arabic, raise them. What you are doing is calling the process itself
into
doubt. As it is clear that you are not familiar with the process in the first place, the policy as it is does not allow for extinct and
constructed
languages and you write that such languages are created, I think you
should
create the arz.wikipedia.org.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.
Well, so is Klingon! :) An ISO-639-3 listing doesn't by itself confer appropriateness for use; it merely confirms that the language can be referred to with a standardized code.
Appropriateness for use in a Wikimedia project tends to vary quite a bit; in some areas we avoid creating wikis for national variants of larger language groups, in other areas we create a lot of national
and
subnational variants.
Since this is a written medium, national or subnational language variants are usually most controversial where there isn't a standard orthography and the requested form is not commonly used in written communication. (On the other hand, even extinct languages are
frequently
given wikis where they have a long written historical context.)
I'm only asking about arz specifically because:
a) It's recently come up as we're tidying up the backlog, so it's at
the
top of the pile
b) I've gotten specific questions about the approval process for arz,
so
we're making sure everything's clear before setting it up
c) The public discussion I have seen was not conclusive, and it's not yet clear that the langcom discussion was conclusive either.
If the discussion was conclusive, then we'll be happy to finish it
up.
But since I'd rather not go through this every time we have another
wiki
to create, I want to make sure that the process is clear.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkgpXgACgkQwRnhpk1wk44c0wCfU/WtGWRLJU3qi30AoAP3RQFz IgAAoLlrtyVqCP6GmPxy4ZCxT7vyJiGC =A5X/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hi,
Why the vagueness?? Why can't we know how many said yes, how many said no, how many didnt answer, what are the arguments for and the arguments against inside langcom? Like I said before, how do you know when someone becomes inactive?
I am completely ok with any decision, I (and a ton other people) however, would like to feel that our arguments where heard by all the committee members before making a decision and would like a little bit more transparency than 'I asked them and they said yes'.
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:42 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, I requested an opinion from the other members of the language committee. They came with the answer that Egyptian Arabic should be considered eligible. I am completely ok with this result, but for the record I asked for an opinion and got a favourable decision. The notion that I forwarded an opinion is not correct. Thanks, GerardM
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 5:37 PM, Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster@gmail.com
wrote:
Hello,
Gerard is emotional because for him somehow all boils down to freedom of speech. I had an argument earlier with him on foundation-I and questioned the process and he would repeatedly go to "why do you want to inhibit the freedom of others when no one is trying to do the same to you". I tried
to
point out this is pretty irrelevant to what I am asking to no avail. I asked whether I could see the deliberation of LangCom regarding this case when
he
said 'Langcom took into account all the issues you raised while making a decision' but he said those are confidential (even Ting raised an
objection
to that!), and then later on said the 'deliberations' consisted of him declaring it on the mailing list and no one objected.
Regardless of the issue of Masry, I for one would like to see more transparency out of langcom, I would like to see the deliberations of its members archived somewhere and I would like to see what are the rules of discussions (like what Brion said about the minimum of ppl required for a discussion). Posting a proposal and recieving no answer doesnt
necessarily
mean everyone considered the subject, it may also mean that they didnt. Also, if that is your process, how do you determine when a member of langcom becomes inactive?
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 8:10 AM, Bilal Abdul Kader <bilalak@gmail.com
wrote:
Hi Gerard, This will be my last contribution to this topic but it seems you are
taking
the issue emotionally. Brion is not asking for more than a due process.
I
really do not see the argument of pro-masri or anti-masri in his words.
Wikipedia should not be used to advance nationalist causes. Rather, it provides an open medium to disseminate information and let people collaborate to build an encyclopedia that others can use.
bilal
On Mon, Nov 17, 2008 at 4:35 AM, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.comwrote:
Hoi, There is a strong sentiment against allowing for the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia by those who prefer a unified Arabic Wikipedia. They have
used
all kinds of arguments but in essence they refuse others to work on what
is
after all a recognised separate language. When they argue that it
will
fracture the effort for the Arabic Wikipedia, they forget that it is
not
their time and effort they are directing. When they argue that not
much
is
written in Egyptian Arabic, they forget that this is no different for
many
languages like Limburgian as well. Their problem is that their view
of
a
world where everyone speaks the same language is at odds with how it
is
perceived others.
There is a request for an Egyptian Arabic Wiktionary in the pipe line
and
with 99,81% for the MediaWiki messages and 97.51% they have
demonstrated
their comitment to this effort. It is all the more remarkable because
they
do not have their Wikipedia yet. It is a clear testament to their
wish
to
do well for their language.
The point of the language committee is that it has the remit to
decide
on
these issues.Consequently there are situations where some will not
agree
what it is that the committee decides and it means that there will be
no
public consensus. This is to be expected and accepted.
Brion, when you have specific questions as to the approval of
Egyptian
Arabic, raise them. What you are doing is calling the process itself
into
doubt. As it is clear that you are not familiar with the process in
the
first place, the policy as it is does not allow for extinct and
constructed
languages and you write that such languages are created, I think you
should
create the arz.wikipedia.org.
Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 11:58 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Egyptian Arabic is recognised as a language by the International Standardisation Organisation (ISO) in its ISO-639-3 standard.
Well, so is Klingon! :) An ISO-639-3 listing doesn't by itself
confer
appropriateness for use; it merely confirms that the language can
be
referred to with a standardized code.
Appropriateness for use in a Wikimedia project tends to vary quite
a
bit; in some areas we avoid creating wikis for national variants of larger language groups, in other areas we create a lot of national
and
subnational variants.
Since this is a written medium, national or subnational language variants are usually most controversial where there isn't a
standard
orthography and the requested form is not commonly used in written communication. (On the other hand, even extinct languages are
frequently
given wikis where they have a long written historical context.)
I'm only asking about arz specifically because:
a) It's recently come up as we're tidying up the backlog, so it's
at
the
top of the pile
b) I've gotten specific questions about the approval process for
arz,
so
we're making sure everything's clear before setting it up
c) The public discussion I have seen was not conclusive, and it's
not
yet clear that the langcom discussion was conclusive either.
If the discussion was conclusive, then we'll be happy to finish it
up.
But since I'd rather not go through this every time we have another
wiki
to create, I want to make sure that the process is clear.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkgpXgACgkQwRnhpk1wk44c0wCfU/WtGWRLJU3qi30AoAP3RQFz IgAAoLlrtyVqCP6GmPxy4ZCxT7vyJiGC =A5X/ -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-- Best Regards, Muhammad Alsebaey _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Hoi, * Why is it improperly labeled? This helps to prevent issues in the future.
* The mailing list of the language committee is available for members of the language committee only. The language committee works by full consensus, consequently when any one objects to something that needs approval, it is not approved. So consequently we do not have anything to show for you, but as has been indicated befor,e at the time when the status of eligibility was to be decided for Egyptian Arabic, the question was raised by me if it should be considered eligible and this was discussed on the list, the answer we agreed on was "yes". * I do not know who told you that only two members discussed this but given the way that only one voice is enough to prevent something from going through, it does not need much discussion when people approve. * So we do discuss things when we find a need for it. * What we do not find is that when requests are approved and accepted by the board that they are created. It is not the first time that this proved a problem. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 1:58 AM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, While you are at it, please have a look at bug 15013... It has been
waiting
today for 121 days.. 121 days after registering in Bugzilla. If there are any issues please let them be known.
- The bug was improperly labeled and could not be found when searching
specifically for the request. This likely didn't help it to receive any attention! :)
- Can you show us the language committee's open discussion and
consensus summary in favor of this setup?
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives shows no evidence of any official discussion nor record of a decision.
The unofficial discussion I do see at:
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages/Wikipedia_Egyptian... seems very inconclusive.
I've been told that only two members of the committee discussed and approved it, which doesn't seem to match with the spirit of the committee, which has 11 members per http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee
The reason we created a language subcommittee in the first place was to have an official body in which several people could have a discussion, come to a consensus among themselves, and hammer out a solid conclusion instead of letting these things simmer on for ages with different opinions remaining open.
If that's not clearly going on, then we should make sure the committee gets back on track.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkfcEQACgkQwRnhpk1wk47BzwCgy+MrDMdcsTMhxvdrKUYQmtN1 Xh0An3e/bUh8zcle9Cyaq5cqRSK5gUXk =noNz -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
- Why is it improperly labeled? This helps to prevent issues in the future.
As noted in other response -- the summary didn't refer to the language requested, so could not be easily found or prioritized in response to inquiries.
- The mailing list of the language committee is available for members of the
language committee only. The language committee works by full consensus, consequently when any one objects to something that needs approval, it is not approved. So consequently we do not have anything to show for you, but as has been indicated befor,e at the time when the status of eligibility was to be decided for Egyptian Arabic, the question was raised by me if it should be considered eligible and this was discussed on the list, the answer we agreed on was "yes".
How many people actually, actively, agreed to it, and on what basis?
- I do not know who told you that only two members discussed this but given
the way that only one voice is enough to prevent something from going through, it does not need much discussion when people approve.
- So we do discuss things when we find a need for it.
As an operational matter, we need to be able to rely on the langcom's decisions to carry weight, or else we have to do more individual research into your requests, which means we can't respond to them as quickly as you'd like.
If a failure to discuss is taken as approval, this may indicate that the committee's process is dysfunctional.
Typically, a quorum (minimum number of discussion participants) is required to ensure that adequate attention has been paid to requests. Does the language committee currently have a quorum requirement? What is it, and was it reached in this particular discussion?
- What we do not find is that when requests are approved and accepted by the
board that they are created. It is not the first time that this proved a problem.
Please note that setup of language subdomains of existing project sites is totally outside the scope of the business of the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The business of the board is to set a direction for the company, hire an executive to manage the day-to-day operations of the company moving in that direction, and provide oversight of how well the company is doing that job and whether the company is spending donor money effectively.
If operational requests you care about are behind, don't waste your or the board's time invoking the board -- come to me directly and ask what's the hold-up.
In this case, the general hold-up for a long time was simply that the tech team was spending most effort on low-level site operations; reconfiguration and new wiki setup requests were handled either by volunteer admins doing general housecleaning on the queue, or by direct handling of a particular request brought to our attention.
Apparently this particular request was either unseen or uninteresting to volunteer admins going through the queue, and no one reached out specifically to us about it.
We're now clearing out general backlogs and are trying to ensure that the requests are legitimate -- there's nothing less fun than changing a site configuration or setting up a new language site and then finding out the community didn't actually want it!
If the existing infrastructure for language setup approval is not working effectively at establishing a firm consensus, I'd like to make sure we fix that process -- it'll be easier on everybody. Approved requests will carry more weight, they'll get taken care of faster, and we're less likely to have to reverse something already set up.
- -- brion
Hoi, The process of a language is quite straight forward. As the requirements for a new project are well published and by and large well known, When a linguistic entity has an ISO-639-3 code and when it is not a constructed language or an extinct language, it becomes eligible. When there are circumstances that are different or complicating, the language committee is asked for an opinion. We do not require a quorum, we are maybe not "typical" but we can our job done.
In the final step of the process, we inform the chair of the board of our recommendation for approving a new project. We are currently in the process of approving a new project and we have asked Michael Snow for his opinion of the process. He indicated that we are to send this message to the members of the board and, if we do not get questions or a negative indication we may assume that there is consent.
Given that all our requests for the creation of new projects are approved in this way, there is hardly any need for you to question that due process has been followed. Again, nothing happens if the language committee is not in agreement. The current practice has resulted in more viable projects, it has lead to an improvement in the localisation of our projects. I would argue that the current process has proven itself. Thanks, GerardM
On Sun, Nov 16, 2008 at 10:31 PM, Brion Vibber brion@wikimedia.org wrote:
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
- Why is it improperly labeled? This helps to prevent issues in the
future.
As noted in other response -- the summary didn't refer to the language requested, so could not be easily found or prioritized in response to inquiries.
- The mailing list of the language committee is available for members of
the
language committee only. The language committee works by full consensus, consequently when any one objects to something that needs approval, it is not approved. So consequently we do not have anything to show for you,
but
as has been indicated befor,e at the time when the status of eligibility was to be decided for Egyptian Arabic, the question was raised by me if
it
should be considered eligible and this was discussed on the list, the
answer
we agreed on was "yes".
How many people actually, actively, agreed to it, and on what basis?
- I do not know who told you that only two members discussed this but
given
the way that only one voice is enough to prevent something from going through, it does not need much discussion when people approve.
- So we do discuss things when we find a need for it.
As an operational matter, we need to be able to rely on the langcom's decisions to carry weight, or else we have to do more individual research into your requests, which means we can't respond to them as quickly as you'd like.
If a failure to discuss is taken as approval, this may indicate that the committee's process is dysfunctional.
Typically, a quorum (minimum number of discussion participants) is required to ensure that adequate attention has been paid to requests. Does the language committee currently have a quorum requirement? What is it, and was it reached in this particular discussion?
- What we do not find is that when requests are approved and accepted by
the
board that they are created. It is not the first time that this proved a problem.
Please note that setup of language subdomains of existing project sites is totally outside the scope of the business of the board of directors of the Wikimedia Foundation.
The business of the board is to set a direction for the company, hire an executive to manage the day-to-day operations of the company moving in that direction, and provide oversight of how well the company is doing that job and whether the company is spending donor money effectively.
If operational requests you care about are behind, don't waste your or the board's time invoking the board -- come to me directly and ask what's the hold-up.
In this case, the general hold-up for a long time was simply that the tech team was spending most effort on low-level site operations; reconfiguration and new wiki setup requests were handled either by volunteer admins doing general housecleaning on the queue, or by direct handling of a particular request brought to our attention.
Apparently this particular request was either unseen or uninteresting to volunteer admins going through the queue, and no one reached out specifically to us about it.
We're now clearing out general backlogs and are trying to ensure that the requests are legitimate -- there's nothing less fun than changing a site configuration or setting up a new language site and then finding out the community didn't actually want it!
If the existing infrastructure for language setup approval is not working effectively at establishing a firm consensus, I'd like to make sure we fix that process -- it'll be easier on everybody. Approved requests will carry more weight, they'll get taken care of faster, and we're less likely to have to reverse something already set up.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkgkRUACgkQwRnhpk1wk45DNQCcDrdn4iVsn0eboQHR/Gq7D2e7 n5MAoMYG+qq0HQqrM5d1XNI/WTbWfL+B =h6TX -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, The process of a language is quite straight forward. As the requirements for a new project are well published and by and large well known, When a linguistic entity has an ISO-639-3 code and when it is not a constructed language or an extinct language, it becomes eligible.
If that were it we wouldn't have a language committee. :)
National and subnational variants of languages have always been more difficult, stuck between the pressures of localism, nationalism, supranationalism, the desire to provide resources in the local language, the desire to provide a common bridge and a larger, more vibrant community.
Given that all our requests for the creation of new projects are approved in this way, there is hardly any need for you to question that due process has been followed. Again, nothing happens if the language committee is not in agreement. The current practice has resulted in more viable projects, it has lead to an improvement in the localisation of our projects. I would argue that the current process has proven itself.
Given that we're kicking the whole process of site setup back into gear, and we'll be needing to rely on your process, I'd appreciate it as a personal favor if you could confirm with a quick roll-call vote of the committee that the committee is satisfied with its process and the outcome of recent discussions and decisions before we continue.
I'm not asking just for your opinion, or of anyone's opinion who's not involved in the committee. I just want to confirm that the committee is in fact currently operational and satisfied with its process.
- -- brion
- The bug was improperly labeled and could not be found when searching
specifically for the request. This likely didn't help it to receive any attention! :)
It's in the "Language Setup" component of the "Wikimedia" product, what more do you want?
- Can you show us the language committee's open discussion and
consensus summary in favor of this setup?
The request was made by a member of the committee. I think it's reasonable to interpret that as official.
I won't repeat the arguments against the creation of arz.* , they are at meta and ar.wp for those interested. language committee is clearly wrong this time. creation of arz.* can be described in the following:
while ( sun rises everyday ) { echo "Bad idea."; }
Dear Mohamed,
I understand that you are disappointed about this; however, what I don't understand is what it had to do with wikitech-l ("Wikimedia developers mailing list")? Perhaps this should go to Wikimediameta-lhttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediameta-l
Cheers,
Hojjat
On 11/17/08, Mohamed Magdy mohamed.m.k@gmail.com wrote:
I won't repeat the arguments against the creation of arz.* , they are at meta and ar.wp for those interested. language committee is clearly wrong this time. creation of arz.* can be described in the following:
while ( sun rises everyday ) { echo "Bad idea."; }
-- --alnokta _______________________________________________ Wikitech-l mailing list Wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikitech-l
Ok, Rob's starting to clear out some of the FlaggedRevs setup requests, now that we've cleaned up some of the configuration files.
For today we've set up en.wikibooks.org as requested: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14618
If everything's going smoothly, we'll start chugging through the rest over the coming days.
When you continue enable FalggedRevs on remaining projects?
Leinad
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1
Daniel ~ Leinad wrote:
Ok, Rob's starting to clear out some of the FlaggedRevs setup requests, now that we've cleaned up some of the configuration files.
For today we've set up en.wikibooks.org as requested: https://bugzilla.wikimedia.org/show_bug.cgi?id=14618
If everything's going smoothly, we'll start chugging through the rest over the coming days.
When you continue enable FalggedRevs on remaining projects?
Monday. :)
- -- brion
wikitech-l@lists.wikimedia.org