[Foundation-l] Criteria for the closure of projects.

[Milos Rancic]

Generally, I agree with you about this issue, however, in some
particular points I do not:

- While your first point is a valid one, I don't think that a problem
with a script should lead to the closure of the project. I would
prefer an ultimatum here, too: If your script problem may not be
solved by computational methods, then you have 2h04m to allow writing
on your project in another script.

- I don't agree that not active projects should be closed if they
represents a valid language. AFAIK, even Swahili Wikipedia is not
quite active and this is a lingua franca of Sub-Saharan Africa. Maybe
such projects should be locked (because of not wasting stewards' time
with dealing with vandalism) with a clear notice (preferably in native
language) which states that "If you are a speaker of that language and
you are willing to contribute there, you should ask for unlocking
there."

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:23 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  For quite some time, we have had people arguing for the closure of projects.
>  I have seen many arguments pro and against closures. What has been missing
>  in all these projects are objective criteria why it makes sense to find
>  fault with a project.
>
>  I have come up with three objective arguments.
>
>    - A project is not what it is advertised to be. For instance when a
>    language is always written in a particular script, a project in any other
>    script is problematic.
>    - A project does not have at least 90% of the most relevant messages
>    localised. For your information there are only 498 messages in this category
>    at the moment.
>    - A project should have at least 1000 articles. When there is nothing
>    to see what is the point ?
>
>  The first argument is an absolute, never mind the size.
>
>  For the second and third I would argue for closure when both conditions are
>  not met. When there is activity in either it may be reason for giving an
>  ultimatum. The ultimatum would be that both conditions need to be met within
>  three months.
>
>  The most important reason why we need viable projects is because it is sad
>  to see so much time wasted by good people on projects that have little or no
>  objective value. No value because nobody actively cares. Yes, people may
>  come along and get an interest and eventually they will, but time of
>  valuable people is wasted now and that provides in my opinion a really
>  strong extra argument.
>  Thanks,
>      GerardM
>  _______________________________________________
>  foundation-l mailing list
>  foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>  Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>