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

[Mark Williamson]

I, for one, do not think that would have been a bad decision. I do
think it would've slowed down growth, but it would've helped NPOV and
duplication of work.

Mark

On 13/04/07, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:
> In short, if Lang SubCom existed in the time of separation of
> Serbo-Croatian Wikipedia, Serbo-Croatian projects would be the only
> project.
>
> On 4/13/07, Mark Williamson <node.ue at gmail.com> wrote:
> > 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.
> >
> > "Hoi,
> > 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:
> >
> > "Hoi,
> > 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?
> >
> > Mark
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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.