[Foundation-l] Fw: Why we should use the community draft of the language proposal policy

[Dovi Jacobs]

Responding to Jesse Plamondon-Willard's points:

>The current draft still as a few issues:

>* It allows wikis for languages that have no written form.

This is not an "issue". The Wikimedia Foundation itself has in
the past advertised meeting its goal of spreading knowledge
by providing a platform for languages without fixed written forms
(especially native-American languages) to express themselves and
develop both their written forms and materials in them. So yes,
the proposal is quite clear in allowing them. Since interface
is a requirement, no such wiki will be created under the proposed
policy until an acceptable written form has been agreed upon.

> * It allows every type of language except fictional, including
languages nobody uses for communication. For example, it allows wikis
is extinct languages, so long as some people learn to write or speak
it fluently. Even fictional languages are only excluded due to
"substantial opposition in the community", with no rational
explanation for the distinction between fluently-spoken artificial and
fluently-spoken extinct languages.

Classical languages are not "extinct" languages by any means.
Yes, the policy clearly allows them because of the many educated
people who can express themselves in them fluently and want to do
so. This is not an "issue", but a matter on which the community
(as reflected in the draft) clearly disagrees with the language
committee. Is the Language Committee accountable to community
will or not? If any disagreement is an "issue" and there is no
accountability to community will, then perhaps both the role and
the very existence of the language committee should be reconsidered.

As far as fictional languages, you are correct that there is no
rational explanation other than "community opposition." Exactly.
I personally having nothing against fictional languages either, but
*this* policy draft ultimately derives its legitimacy from community
collaboration and compromise. It reflects community will.
Does the current policy do that?

> * The new requirements are vague and arbitrary, and essentially let
the subcommittee decide requests based on personal preference. They
exclude far less languages, but only because they're not concrete or
measurable.

Everything is completely measurable: How many participants are there
who can express themselves fluently who are building the test
project? Has the localization been completed?

>The community draft is promising, but I don't think implementing it
while these issues are unaddressed would be beneficial.

All the issues *have* been addressed. Perhaps you disagree with
*how* they have been addressed. It seems strange to me that,
if you think things have not been addressed, that you are raising
your issues here rather than at the proposal's talk page over the
past several months.

Thanks,
Dovi