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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
I do not play by a hymn book. As I indicated I do not know what other
committees do, they do not seem to have the same level of interest to
communicate what they are doing. Their processes are not as observable.

There are those that insist to call this committee the "language
subcommittee", historically correct but there is no observable "special
projects committee" that we are supposed to be part of. The language
committee does what it is expected to do. The end result, the fiat of the
board and the creation of projects are not for us to do.

In the mean time you have had your moment of laughter, but you did not
answer the question. The point is that there are many people who spend a lot
of time wording opinions, making few observable contributions. What I want
to know of you is what has priority talk and process or the writing of
content, the execution of processes..

Another question what IS the point ? We seem to disagree on that one.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On Mon, May 26, 2008 at 4:57 PM, Jussi-Ville Heiskanen <cimonavaro at gmail.com>
wrote:

> 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
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>