[Foundation-l] How to dismantle a language committee

[Gerard Meijssen]

Hoi,
Typically the time period is a couple of days up to a week. Pathoschild has
asked our least active members if they were still interested in being a
member. He indicated that he was going to make proposals. I am still waiting
for those.
Thanks,
     GerardM

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

> Do you have a set time limit for people to respond in? a week? a month? and
> what about the 4 inactive persons, how do you consider them inactive? what
> if you had 7 inactive members out of 10 at a time and didnt know it, would
> it still be a 'unanimous' decision?
>
> On Sat, Jan 10, 2009 at 4:02 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>