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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Swahili would not be closed. Its localisation is 100.00%  for the most used
messages and would not qualify under these  terms. When a project is to be
closed, when objective arguments are applied, we can give a stay of
execution if there are arguments to do so. The point is that with objective
criteria there is less room for noise.

The notion of closing projects is problematic because it just does not
happen in the first place. What I attempt to do is rationalise the debate
and get some objective criteria. This may reestablish some trust and this
may get "resolutions" implemented.

On Thu, Apr 10, 2008 at 2:51 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>