[Foundation-l] Proposal for a procedure for the closure of projects

[Mark Williamson]

I support this, but there must be clear requirements and restrictions
for closing projects. For example, although it has been controversial,
I do not think the policy should allow for closing the ru-sib.wp
because of its size and its community.

Mark

On 30/04/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
> We have been working on a procedure for the closure of projects for some
> time. The reason for this is that the language committee has been asked to
> do this for several projects. It is not something we liked to do as it will
> not gain us any popularity. However, we hope that having a proper procedure
> will help us all.
>
> Key points:
>
>   - Language committee deals primarily with language issues.
>   - The process will take at least a month, this should allow for a
>   resolution of the issue in the meantime without getting any official
>   involvement
>   - We define a need for a "Meta Arbitration Committee", we have not
>   defined it as such
>   - When it is within the remit of the language committee to decide for
>   the end of a project, it will be possible to appeal a decision by the "Meta
>   Arbitration Committee"
>   - When it is accepted that a project is to end, there will be a
>   proposal to the board for consideration
>   - Requesting the end of a project is not a zero sum game, it can go
>   the other way and result in sanctions against the person, group, project
>   requesting it
>
> Thanks,
>    GerardM
>
> PS In the ideas of the Language committee the Kanuri language would go to
> the Incubator.
> _______________________________________________
> 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.