[Foundation-l] Fwd: ISO 639 JAC decision re mo/mol

[Mark Williamson]

This has been a problem in the past. Everybody with a complaint or
problem that is language-related wants to take it to LangCom for a
ruling. However, LangCom only has the power to make decisions about
new projects and new languages, as far as I know... so it is another
situation where people are looking in the wrong place.

Of course, it would be logical for a language committee to handle all
language-related affairs, but that is not the way it is. Although
members of the LangCom may have opinions about, say, Serbo-Croatian or
Moldovan or various other pre-LangCom linguistic debates, they don't
have a mandate to make any sort of binding ruling on those matters,
unfortunately.

Mark

On 03/11/2008, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hoi,
>  We explicitly are not involved in any issue that has not to do with the
>  process of starting new projects in new languages or existing languages.
>
>  There are several issues that are not dealt with as a result. However, these
>  issues are not within the remit of the language committee.
>  Thanks,
>       GerardM
>
>
>  On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 5:02 PM, Chad <innocentkiller at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>  > I would think the LangCom has the enduring responsibility of dealing with
>  > all
>  > projects/languages, pre-LangCom or not. Seems to me that language-related
>  > issues are under LangCom :)
>  >
>  > -Chad
>  >
>  > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 10:59 AM, Gerard Meijssen
>  > <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>wrote:
>  >
>  > > Hoi,
>  > > Moldavian was created before the start of the language committee.. so no
>  > > responsibility at all for the language committee; it was not involved.
>  > > Thanks,
>  > >      GerardM
>  > >
>  > > On Mon, Nov 3, 2008 at 4:52 PM, geni <geniice at gmail.com> wrote:
>  > >
>  > > > 2008/11/3 Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>:
>  > > > > Hoi,
>  > > > > With the ISO 639-3 standard we have the best standard that is
>  > > available.
>  > > > It
>  > > > > is the only standard that ties in with what we do; publish on the
>  > > > Internet.
>  > > > > When you know about the policies of the language committee, you would
>  > > > know
>  > > > > that it only expresses opinions about requests for new projects and
>  > > > > languages. The question of what I personally find is not that
>  > relevant
>  > > as
>  > > > a
>  > > > > consequence.
>  > > > >
>  > > > > I am not interested into our Moldavian issue per se, I have found and
>  > I
>  > > > > still find that it is very much a political issue. An issue that has
>  > > been
>  > > > > dealt with by the closure of the wiki. When I look at how comparable
>  > > > > situations were dealt with elsewhere, I am not impressed. Let it be
>  > > clear
>  > > > > that the mo code is still legal. It may still be used.
>  > > > > Thanks,
>  > > > >      Gerard
>  > > >
>  > > > So you are taking the collective responsibility route? Have the other
>  > > > memebers agreed to this?
>  > > >
>  > > >
>  > > > --
>  > > > geni
>  > > >
>  > > > _______________________________________________
>  > > > 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
>  > >
>  > _______________________________________________
>  > 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
>