[Foundation-l] possible reconsideration, unifying criterion

[Andrew Dalby]

Jesse Martin (Pathoschild <pathoschild at ...> writes:

> 
> David Gerard <dgerard at ...> wrote:
> >  Yeah, but the policy was pulled from the language committee's backside.
> 
> I'm not sure what you're suggesting. Should we revert to the
> pre-subcommittee policy
>
<http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Requests_for_new_languages?oldid=474152#Information>?
> Essentially, the policy was "list your request below, achieve
> consensus in a vote, and poke developers yourself until they (maybe)
> create it."
> 
> If you agree that the current policy is better than the previous
> policy, it doesn't matter whose backside it was pulled from. The
> community is actively discussing what to change, so the policy is not
> decided solely by a black-box cabal.
> 
> Furthermore, most of the policy was not written by the subcommittee.
> It was proposed through the community in November 2006:
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Talk:Language_subcommittee/2007#Reform>.
> This was at a time when discussion occurred directly on the page, so
> the proposal popped up on virtually every requester's watchlist. It
> was eventually implemented with no opposition, and months later
> adopted and amended by the subcommittee.
> 
Sorry to come along late but I think a correction is needed here: so far as I
can discover, the exclusion of ancient languages was not proposed through the
community and was not discussed by the subcommittee. I could find no record that
the amendment by which it was introduced was even noticed by the subcommittee.
Please correct me if I'm wrong here!

Andrew Dalby