[Foundation-l] On closing projects

GerardM gerard.meijssen at gmail.com
Sun May 6 13:52:34 UTC 2007

When you read the proposal that was formulated by me carefully, you will
notice that the Language committee is not interested in becoming really
involved in closing down projects. When it is about non functional
languages, typically only Wikipedia projects, having them returned to the
Incubator will prevent the loss of work done previously.

Technically the Language committee can only learn if a language is indeed
the language that it is said to be when there is a sufficient corpus. The
requirement of having a functioning incubator community is relevant only in
the prevention of failed projects. As it is written in the position paper,
it is the worst that can happen to a project.

By having what we called a "global arbitration committee" it can be created
in any which way. When the stewards appreciate that this is explicitly what
is expected of them, it would be a great thing.


On 5/6/07, Erik Moeller <erik at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> I've been asked by a number of people to comment on our procedure for
> closing projects, specifically the LangCom's policy proposal & the
> issue of the Siberian Wikipedia.
> As far as I can tell -
> 1) There is a functioning process at:
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Proposals_for_closing_projects
> Insofar as it is not currently the case, I believe stewards should
> generally be the ones closing these discussions. Like deletion
> discussions on Wikipedia, they should not strictly be regarded as
> "votes", but as weighted arguments. (IMHO in the most controversial
> cases, multiple stewards should work together in closing the
> discussion.)
> 2)  For closures that relate to the validity of a language, the
> LangCom should make a recommendation as to whether the language should
> be deleted (typically languages that were approved in the
> pre-incubator days) or moved back to the incubator. This
> recommendation ought to be taken into account by the steward(s)
> finalizing the decision.
> 3) I do not see a need, at present, to give the LangCom any other
> authority with regard to the closure of projects/languages.
> "Developers" (server admins) should implement decisions based on the
> stewards' requests.
> 4) The idea of a Meta-ArbCom is an interesting one, but it should be
> explored separately from this issue.
> 5) The Siberian Wikipedia discussion should be closed by a group of
> stewards, and take any recommendation of the LangCom on the matter
> into account.
> 6) For the time being, the Board should receive notification (say 10
> days) of any pending closure, but their approval is not needed. After
> we have hired an ED, these notifications can go to the ED, and will be
> escalated to the Board only when needed.
> 7) I have no personal opinion on the Siberian issue.
> These are my personal, preliminary thoughts on the matter.
> --
> Peace & Love,
> Erik
> DISCLAIMER: This message does not represent an official position of
> the Wikimedia Foundation or its Board of Trustees.
> "An old, rigid civilization is reluctantly dying. Something new, open,
> free and exciting is waking up." -- Ming the Mechanic
> _______________________________________________
> 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