[Foundation-l] Introduction to the internal workings of the language subcommittee

[Dovi Jacobs]

I second Anthere's expression of gratitude for the two years of the language
committee's work. Thanks also to Pathoschild for his description. I apologize if my query about its internal workings offended anyone. That was not my intention.

On a practical level, it seems that the language committee has two basic functions:
1. To decide language policy.
2. To implement language policy (e.g. guiding the process for each proposed wiki
in a new language from initial proposal to implementation according to policy). The comments about hard work and massive investments of time would seem to be mostly a function of this second part.

The recent discussion has mostly been about #1, and it is understandable that
members who have done a lot of hard work will be miffed if their opinions are
questioned by people who have never participated in #2, or who don't even realize
that such work is being done!

My query about diversity on the committee was not to propose myself as a
member, but was indeed about diversity. At present Gerard is a very prominent
voice with some firmly held positions: Very supportive of artificial languages,
absolute rejection of classical languages (for the reasons he has explained).
He is entitled to his opinions and his logic, but I was asking how those with
alternative positions could also be part of the consensus that is formulated by
the committee. I was thinking not specifically of myself, but rather that in
general, people with strong backgrounds in classical languages might be able
to add further perspectives to the group that are currently lacking (or that at least
seem to be lacking in the formulated consensus).

The idea that new members are added to the committee by consensus of the committee is something good to know; that was not clear to me before. Whether
this is the best policy or not can be debated; every system has its pluses and
minuses.

A further question is regarding the consensus of the committee: What happens
when that consensus is greeted by a lack of consensus in the Wikimedia
community? Does that mean they must be accepted even though "you may
not like them" in Gerard's words? Or is the committee ultimately responsible
in some way to the larger community of contributors?

Are the discussions within the committee that lead to consensus open to the
public in some sort of an archive? If not, then perhaps they should be, in the
interests of transparency. If they are (and I'm just ignorant about it) it would be
a public service to post the location.

To Gerard: I am a secret admirer of the wonderful work you do on Omegawiki. It is quite evident that the functionality you are working towards is what will
ultimately turn Mediawiki into fully multilingual software (for projects such as
Commons), and will do a great deal for languages around the world. I also notice
your strongly worded positions on many issues at this mailing list. Sometimes I
agree and sometimes (like this time) I don't, but that does not detract in any way
for the admiration that myself and others have for your expertise and your hard
work. My apologies again if the impression I left was otherwise.

Dovi