[Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee
shipmaster at gmail.com
Sat Jan 10 23:59:49 UTC 2009
Which creates the situation we are in, according to you, all members of the
language committee were explicitly asked to consider the issues that I and
others raised, but since only one out of the 10+ people responded, therefore
they must have all considered all the issues and have no comment, and the
decision is unanimous. I am not going to debate with you how this doesnt
sound very logical, It is sufficient to say you are now finding out that
there were at least 1 objecting and 4 inactive members after you declared
the decision 'unanimous'.
On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 3:44 PM, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>wrote:
> As I have been saying before, the language committee works on the basis
> if only one person objects, something does not move forward. Many subjects
> are raised on our mailing list where people are notified that something is
> going to be done and when nobody objects within a certain time frame, the
> proposal is moved forward.
> 2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster at gmail.com>
> > So Based on the the Archives Jesse and Casey graciously provided the link
> > to, the only discussion about Masry I found was:
> > When I raised the issue of Masry on this mailing list, raising what I
> > thought was valid concerns, and at the same times others were raising
> > concerns on meta, Gerard's response was, and I quote:
> > I have indicated that the language
> > > committee was unanimous in deciding that the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia
> > > request was eligible.
> > >
> > As indicated earlier, all members of the language
> > > committee were explicitly asked to consider the issue that you raise.
> > > 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.
> > >
> > >
> > Per above link, I see a discussion only between two members (Gerard and
> > Jon). I am pretty confused how did that constitute a 'unanimous
> > Wouldn't that be a gross mis-characterization?
> > Wouldn't refusal to point me to archived discussion *then*
> > mis-characterizing what really happened on the list be grounds for some
> > kind
> > of audit?
> > Forgive me If I am wrong, but that is the only information I have to work
> > on, if I am wrong, I apologize to Gerard.
> > Best Regards,
> > Muhammad Alsebaey
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
More information about the foundation-l