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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I disagree that there is consensus on the many things that are in the
proposed policy. Pathoschild is completely correct that the current policy
has as its main advantage that voting is no longer done. Given that
languages are also checked to be that language before permission from the
board is asked, it is now less likely that a project goes rogue.

The policy as it was originally formulated allowed for constructed based on
discussion within the language committee. There are several members in the
language committee that are completely against them and object to for
instance the inclusion of a working Wikipedia project like the one for the
Lingua Franca Nova. This is in my opinion a pity. As to natural languages
that have gone extinct, I would not object when it is clear in the meta data
of the text that the text is not as original written in such a language.. a
code like grc-x-modern would allow for this. The same objection exists
however for this category of languages; there are no native speakers. NB the
URL would still be grc.wikipedia.org !!
Thanks,
      GerardM

2008/12/5 Dovi Jacobs <dovijacobs at yahoo.com>

> Several people on the talk page have done exactly that recently, calling
> for conclusion
> and ratification, because both discussion and formulation seemed to have
> had long been
> accepted by everyone working on it (and you were one of the people who
> contributed).
> If you felt it was inadequate, you should have replied.
>
> If more discussion was needed, and if there are discussions which you feel
> have not
> been closed, then you should have replied there that ratification, in your
> opinion,
> should not proceed because of those issues.
>
> The community was called on to work on a draft. The call was made publicly
> and
> an excellent draft was produced by a number of talented and knowledgeable
> people
> with backgrounds and experience in various aspects of linguistics. The
> "issues" you
> raise were all discussed adequately, and the draft reflects the majority
> view from those
> discussions.
>
> The current draft, I thought, was something that everyone could live with,
> reflecting real
> compromises on a few issues that had been discussed. Quite frankly, given
> your silence
> to the calls for closing, I though that was your opinion too.
>
> If more community members want to discuss and refine the draft further that
> can still
> of course be done, but there needs to be *some* method of finally closing
> the draft and
> ratifying it once those working on it feel that it is done and it starts to
> stagnate.
>
> Otherwise, there is no meaning at all to a community draft.
>
> Have a good weekend,
> Dovi
>
>
> 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)
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>