[Foundation-l] Policy modification (was possible reconsideration)

[Mark Williamson]

Yet again, you totally miss the point and rant about an only
tangentially related topic. Jussi-Ville had a very good point to make,
and it seems to have gone over your head completely.

2008/5/26 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
> Hoi,
> Given that the language committee is in the business of STARTING projects,
> there is no community, it is exactly one of the criteria for starting a
> project that there is one. When people who do not speak a language vote in
> order to have one, it is of no relevance at all. You may have noticed that
> voting is of little or no relevance for the language committee. When a
> language is recognised as such, we generally allow for a new project.
> Recognition is based on a living language recognised by the ISO-639-3.
>
> When I ask you and Ray a pointed question, it is exactly because both of you
> are candidates for a seat on the board of trustees. Pointed questions are
> called for because they do not give room to weasel out of taking a
> position.. Then again, you can always flatly refuse to answer and make that
> seem reasonable.
>
> I am not asking about other committees, I am not involved in them and do not
> have much of an opinion on them.
> Thanks,
>     GerardM
>
> On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 3:26 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>> > On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 2:40 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <
>> cimonavaro at gmail.com>
>> > wrote:
>> >  >> Without commenting on any of the contentions between Ray and Gerard
>> >> apparent in this message, it does highlight a glaring omission in
>> >> the relative powershareing definitions in bylaws of the foundation
>> >> and committee and communities and projects and individual
>> >> contributor relations.
>> >>
>> >> No one has ever clarified what the precise role of the committees
>> >> is. Not as a general case. Each one seems to have been generated
>> >> as a special case, with diverging operative assumptions. This
>> >> confusion sorely needs to be clarified in the future.
>> >>
>> >> Yours
>> >>
>> >> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen
>>
>>  > Hoi,
>>  > Jussi-Ville my question to you: are we a talking shop or are we to do
>> what
>>  > we aim to do?
>>  > Thanks,
>>  >        GerardM
>>  >
>>
>> First, let me thank you for giving me the opportunity to fix your
>> problem of top posting.
>>
>> My concern is that there are several things here at play.
>>
>> There is what the committees (all of them, not just your
>> pet one) are *tasked* to do.
>>
>> There is what the committees themselves internally evolve
>> to *aim* to do.
>>
>> There is what the communities expect the committes to do.
>>
>> There is what some disgruntled or otherwise, individuals
>> expect the committees to do.
>>
>> There are several official resolutions for each of the
>> several committees founding etc. which are not even
>> close to being phrased similarly, which does, whether
>> you like it or not, create a source of confusion as to
>> the role of the several committees.
>>
>> None of this is clarified. And asking a very pointed
>> question at me, who had no part in the resolutions that
>> created any of the committees, serves very little purpose
>> of clarifying any of it.
>>
>> Yours
>>
>> Jussi-Ville Heiskanen.
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> foundation-l mailing list
>> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>