[Foundation-l] Proposal for a procedure for the closure of projects
node.ue at gmail.com
Mon Apr 30 23:13:48 UTC 2007
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.
On 30/04/07, GerardM <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
> - 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
> 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
Refije dirije lanmè yo paske nou posede pwòp bato.
More information about the foundation-l