[Foundation-l] On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

[Muhammad Alsebaey]

Hello,

When it comes to freedom, you take the liberty to oppose for reasons that
> further your point of view. The languages that you oppose are in principle
> eligible under the policy. As indicated earlier, all members of the
> language
> committee were explicitly asked to consider the issue that you raise. The
> consequence of this is that in my opinion you refuse people the freedom to
> work on a project in their language, languages that are eligible under the
> language policy of the WMF.


I am taking the liberty of using already approved languages as an example to
demonstrate my point of view, which is about the process the committee uses,
I dont get where you see all the oppression of freedom  (and frankly I find
it irritating that you keep casting what I say in this light) . I have said
from my first email that I understand that Egyptian has already been
approved. You were the one who missed (or refused) to read through.

>
>
> One of the reasons for this policy is to stop the endless talk and
> bickering
> about requests for new WMF projects. For this reason the policy is in fact
> a
> procedure that is the same for all.The benefit of this policy is that new
> projects have proven to do better then new projects prior to the policy
> and,
> there are fewer proposals that have little chance of doing well.
>
> The issue is that you are not wiilling to accept the outcome of the policy.
>
>
No the issue is that I am trying to point out something I see as a weakness
in the policy/process, and I have said so repeatedly since your first
aggresive email , and if you consider that 'bickering' or as you stated
earlier 'agitation' then sadly we will not be able to reach a meaningful
dialogue, it is the same as labeling each nay-sayer as a troll in wiki
discussions. Is your process set in stone and there shall be no discussion
about it? if that is the position of lang com it should be stated clearly.

And regarding meaningful dialogue you say:

other things are considered as well prior
to giving the eligible status.

As indicated earlier, all members of the language
committee were explicitly asked to consider the issue that you raise.

Then if as you claim you have considered all the issues I have raised before
you made the decision there is a big issue in transparency, as I have read
through the approved proposals trying to find any  supporting arguments
other than the ISO code thing and didnt find any, if such arguments were
available, why arent they made public? that would save a person like me such
a discussion.

-- 
Best Regards,
Muhammad Alsebaey