[Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
You are wrong. If one person had objected at the time, the proposal would
not have been made eligible.
Thanks,
     GerardM

2009/1/11 Muhammad Alsebaey <shipmaster at gmail.com>

> 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:
>
> > Hoi,
> > As I have been saying before, the language committee works on the basis
> > that
> > 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.
> > Thanks,
> >     GerardM
> >
> > 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:
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_subcommittee/Archives/2008-07#Wikipedia_Egyptian_Arabic
> > >
> > > 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
> > such
> > > 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.
> > 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.
> > > >
> > > >
> > > Per above link, I see a discussion only between two members (Gerard and
> > > Jon). I am pretty confused how did that constitute a 'unanimous
> > decision'.
> > > 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
> >
>
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Muhammad Alsebaey
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>