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

[Jussi-Ville Heiskanen]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> I wrote:
>> 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.
>>
 > 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


ROFL!

Why in heavens name would flatly refusing to answer seem reasonable?

I think I will continue to respond to relevant questions.

And as to taking a position, wow!

Weaseling out of same, wow!

I think readers of your rants have more than ample evidence of
you repeating the same mantra, without adressing the point at
all.

I am not singleing out your committee, precisely because I don't
feel the responsibility/mandate vacuum is not only a problem only
with your committee, and in so doing, I thought I was being
charitable to the language committee.

I have very little specific objections to the way your
committee has worked in the past, and if I did have, those
objections would have been very minor and not at all
ones that would have been directed at hindering your work.

If you really think your committee is totally divorced from
all other committees in terms of your mandate, perhaps it
would be best for you to advocate your committee to be called
something other than a committee, just to specify that you
are not playing by the same hymn book as the rest of the
committees.

Yours,

Jussi-Ville Heiskanen