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

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
The expert is anything but anonymous. What I gave you is the reason why we
do not have a public mailing list. The arguments as they happened have been
published. There is nothing more.

You have to appreciate that for us it is also a hobby. The policy is as it
is to prevent endless bickering and to provide a predictable result. This is
what we do. When people are against on principle, there is no point in
further discussion. They are against on principle and will use any argument
to get their way.

I care for languages, I care for projects to do well. Any language. I have
no reasons to treat languages differently and the policy and the
implementation of the policy proves this. People who oppose have their
special interest at heart. They are welcome to their position but it does
not make for predictable results if we give in to all the bleeding hearts.

In the end you will only hear from people who do not get their way. The
people who are happy with the results of the policy you do not hear.

In the mean time the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia has been approved 82 days
ago. I think if there is one problem with policies like the language policy,
it is that they are not effectively supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. I
think the waiting for the creation of projects is a disgrace. This is not
specific to this project, it has been a constant struggle to get projects
created.

NB the language policy is an policy endorsed by the board.

Thanks,
       GerardM


On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Ting Chen <wing.philopp at gmx.de> wrote:

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