[Foundation-l] Language subcommittee vs Montenegrin language - show time over again

GerardM gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Fri Apr 13 13:34:27 UTC 2007

When the LC became functional, the decisions were according to the policies
that we subscribe to. Where you state that the Montenegrin proposal is the
victim of this. I can only state that this is a matter of history.

In the way the arguments were produced in the past, they were political and
based on "entitlements" because of the existence of other South Slavic
language projects. These arguments were then as now rejected.

When I refer to the time before there was a LC, I do not single out any
specific project. If you have an interest in these matters you know what is
different and by inference the things that we address in this way. The LC is
not a talking shop, I have no interest in endlessly rehashing the same

When you accuse the LC of personal opinions, I have to stress that the
committee has included people from outside the WMF to broaden its base. This
is how we hope to implement our policies in a way whereby the policy is a
guideline and not a nose around our neck.


On 4/13/07, Darko Bulatovic <mail at itam.ws> wrote:
> GerardM,
> I am glad that you joined this topic. Can you please tell me what
> discussion you referring to?
> That one from November, when request was under attack and when our test
> wiki was attacked and vandalized? That discussion?  It was strange to me
> at that time that LSC just made change in policy after Montenegrin
> request. And it was ruled by new policy even it was finished under old
> one. So can I conclude that Montenegrin wikipedia was unwanted result:
> > The reason
> > for having a language committee in stead of the votes system of the past
> is
> > because these votes created unwanted results.
> >
> Or maybe you have referred to this one which is deliberately spamed  to
> not let any reasonable discussion?
> Please can you be more specific.
> > The language committee does not want to comment of projects that were
> > started in the past. It is not helpful and it makes no difference.
> >
> >
> Why not? Is there any analyzed data which we could use as comparison and
> justify this method that LSC use now? Because I just see that LSC
> declared some tight rules that are not that tight, they are represented
> like that, and they are solely dependable on personal opinion not on
> wide acceptance. If you remember I have posted opinion of numerous
> respected linguists.
> Thank you
> Darko
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

More information about the foundation-l mailing list