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

[Jesse Plamondon-Willard]

Hello Dovi,

The language subcommittee has no official opinion on the issue; I'm
disagreeing as a member of the community. A lack of comment is not
consensus. Several discussions on the talk page went quiet without
ever reaching agreement. A consensus is not reached simply because
nobody recently commented, and your proposals aren't immune from
objection.


Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs at yahoo.com> wrote:
> the proposal is quite clear in allowing [languages without fixed
> written forms]. [...] Since interface is a requirement, no such wiki
> will be created under the proposed policy until an acceptable
> written form has been agreed upon.

That is a contradiction.


Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs at yahoo.com> wrote:
> Classical languages are not "extinct" languages by any means. [...]
> This is not an "issue", but a matter on which the community
> (as reflected in the draft) clearly disagrees with the language
> committee.

The majority of classical languages are extinct, as defined as a lack
of native usage. "Classical" is also a colloquial and controversial
term, not used by language classification bodies. The types used by
ISO 639-3 are living, extinct, ancient, historic, and constructed.

The current draft does not reflect "community will", it reflects your
June 2008 edits to the draft combined with a lack of real discussion.
The only related discussion, about differentiating which constructed
languages deserve wikis, concluded with your proposal to let the
community decide every such case by vote.


Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

The softening of the requirements, and your repetition of the phrase
"community will", suggest to me a return to decision by vote, with all
the consequences that entails (political voting, sockpuppetry,
double-standards, etc). The subcommittee was formed specifically to
get away from that, to form a fair and objective policy; what you
suggest seems to be a policy that leaves everything up to voting.

(And please stop repeating "community will". I am part of the
community, and my little part of that will does not match what you say
it does. You cannot claim "community will" to reject objections from
community members.)


Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs at yahoo.com> wrote:
> 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.

I have raised similar issues on the talk page before. Had you asked if
there were further comments on the talk page rather than here, I would
have responded there.

-- 
Yours cordially,
Jesse Plamondon-Willard (Pathoschild)