[Foundation-l] Closing projects policy now official

Milos Rancic millosh at gmail.com
Sat Jun 25 09:40:40 UTC 2011

On 06/25/2011 11:20 AM, Lodewijk wrote:
> could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to
> *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this advice
> to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the committee
> disagrees (there is a two week discussion but in the end it is a
> one-person-call). Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has
> a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether
> or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?

The answer to the last question is simple: Nobody else bothered to
normalize the situation and Robin took initiative. (Besides that, all of
the issues were described inside of the LangCom report from the meeting
in Berlin, so you could object before. And it was not posted at the
regional court on Alpha Centaur, but on this list, as well.)

The first issue is the product of compromise inside of the Language
committee. Gerard doesn't want to be involved in closing projects, so it
has to be the initiative of particular members. It would be anyway
triple checked: first during the community discussion, second time
during LangCom discussion and third time during the discussion inside of
the Board. Besides that, mentioning all relevant positions is the rule
of functioning inside of the Language committee, which means that nobody
would send to the Board suggestion without it.

More information about the foundation-l mailing list