Jesse Martin (Pathoschild) pathoschild at gmail.com
Thu Apr 17 21:28:42 UTC 2008

Crazy Lover <always_yours.forever at yahoo.com> wrote:
>  native speakers, it is no longer mandatory. then they can be natural, artificial or classics.
>  writer: someone that is able to write the language acceptably?, well?, fluent? that another person understand that he/she has written.(understandable).
>  reader: someone that is able to understand the language that is reading.
>  viable: i'm not thinking in numbers. that allows it to function without problems.???
>  this is not a exact science. accordingly we need to accept some flexibility..

Some flexibility is good, but objectivity is the goal. The
subcommittee should not arbitrarily approve or deny requests based on
subjective judgments, which just come down to how much they like or
don't like a request.

I think "whether a particular language qualifies depends on
discussion" is also problematic. A single policy must apply equally to
all requests, without exceptions or special treatment. Discussions
about individual requests are an excellent tool for learning more
about the language and wiki and finding any problems, but not for
decision-making. This is particularly important because many requests
are important to various nationalist and ideological movements, so
that any decision-making tends to be grossly distorted by sock
puppetry, flame warring, harassment, and other abuse.

Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)

More information about the foundation-l mailing list