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

[Ting Chen]

Gerard Meijssen wrote:
> Hoi,
> It is quite simple; I asked for a comment and I got as an answer that 
> the Arabic languages were not different from other languages we 
> considered. Nobody dissented. After a week I gave the eligible status 
> to Egyptian Arabic and we have a precedent for the eligibility for the 
> Arabic languages. This is what I have reported several times already...
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
> On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de 
> <mailto:wing.philopp at gmx.de>> wrote:
>
>     Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>
>         Hoi,
>         Transparancy exists when it is clear what has been said and
>         done.  You do not need the exact text and you do not need to
>         know every detail. All relevant details have been made public.
>         You know that the information was truthful because otherwise I
>         would have been corrected.
>         Thanks,
>              Gerard
>         On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Ting Chen
>         <wing.philopp at gmx.de <mailto:wing.philopp at gmx.de>
>         <mailto:wing.philopp at gmx.de <mailto:wing.philopp at gmx.de>>> wrote:
>
>            Gerard Meijssen wrote:
>            > Hoi,
>            > Happy that you agree that we are doing a good job.
>            >
>            > As to finding another expert, I am quite happy with the
>         one we
>            have. Your
>            > proposal that we say something along the lines you
>         indicate is not
>            > practical. For your information, you do work also in a
>            non-observable way.
>            > Why should your work be different ?
>            > Thanks,
>            >      Gerard
>            >
>            >
>
>            Personnally, I would vote against any decision on the board
>         that
>            cannot
>            be made transparent. Sorry.
>
>            Ting
>
>            _______________________________________________
>            foundation-l mailing list
>            foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>         <mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>
>            <mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
>         <mailto:foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org>>
>
>            Unsubscribe:
>         https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
>
>     I don't understand you. Sorry. Milos said you need not publish
>     names, just arguments that are exchanged. You answered him that
>     this is not possible. So, whatever decision you made, the
>     arguments that are exchanged inside the LangCom that ultimately
>     resulted in the decision cannot be published. If this is not
>     intransparent I don't know what is.
>
>     Ting
>
>
Well, in this case I agree with Milos, that you should have asked one 
more expert. In principle you asked an anonymous expert and he made a 
statement. This statement is made without argumentations and reasons. 
The members of the committee accepted this statement without 
argumentation and the decision is made.

Because the issue is sensible, and because there are objections inside 
the community, I find the decision process described above not very 
reassuring.

Ting