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

Mark Williamson node.ue at gmail.com
Fri Apr 13 13:48:23 UTC 2007

Something you guys are REALLY bad at, and already infamous for, is
sending tonnes of meaningless empty replies that not only fail to
address the issues, but pretty much fail to address anything at all.

We promised to do this.
We have made our decision.
The reason for our decision is: our decision is final.
We had a careful discussion of all the issues."

Then someone asks: "What did you discuss? Can we read the discussion?"
the answer will be:

We discussed these important issues. We will not be influenced by
politics. Our decision is final. We had a careful discussion of all
the issues. We do not accept political arguments like yours. We
include a broad range of experts to help implement our policies."

I think everybody is tired of this ****. Can you just answer
questions? For once?


On 13/04/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> 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
> arguments
> 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.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l

Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list