I do not have time to go and edit the voting policy right now.
Please take my concerns into account.
On 4 Jul 2017, at 12:31, MF-Warburg
<mfwarburg(a)googlemail.com> wrote:
Are there further comments about this? I'd invite those of you who want to change
parts of the policy to edit
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Voting_policy> directly to
address your concerns.
2017-06-13 19:20 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson <everson(a)evertype.com>om>:
On 13 Jun 2017, at 06:58, Gerard Meijssen <gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com> wrote:
Hoi,
First there is no agreement.
Not sure what you are talking about.
Second, for ISO-639-3 languages that are living
languages there is no need for a vote.
That’s our rules, yes.
Third, for other ISO-639-3 languages there is a
need for a vote.
I suppose there are living languages with few if any users and other languages with
potentially very many.
Compelling arguments are needed and a two third
majority is reasonable.
What does everyone feel about this?
Fourth for codes that do not have an ISO-639-3
code the standard answer is no. Without proper arguments this should not happen.
And this is the BPC 47 thing. That’s a very important and widely-implemented standard. If
the 639 Agency had refused Elfdalian, we would have created a primary tag for it. That
would be a situation where a non-standard answer might be useful.
Michael
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom