Hoi,
yes and we reached consensus about the ones we use. There is a concern and
having a two third majority should be no problem. We do have ISO 639-3
macro languages, they should be avoided.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 4 July 2017 at 20:19, Michael Everson <everson(a)evertype.com> wrote:
Gerard,
We do not have any top-level BCP 47 tags.
Wikimedia is already using BCP 47 subtags without any trouble.
On 4 Jul 2017, at 15:16, Gerard Meijssen
<gerard.meijssen(a)gmail.com>
wrote:
Hoi,
In the case of macro languages and BCP 47 codes there is a need for a
two third
majority. The first is something that should be prevented as much
as possible because it prevents projects that are part of the macro
language. For the BCP 47 there should be a real linguistic point in having
them and we should try to prevent them as they are often more of a
political than linguistic reality.
Thanks,
GerardM
On 9 February 2017 at 17:00, Milos Rancic <millosh(a)gmail.com> wrote:
One issue: voting.
== Voting ==
This is also proposal, so read it and comment if you don't agree or
you want any addition.
1) No voting
1.1) According to the Closing projects policy [1], particular member
of the committee analyzes discussion and, if decides that the project
should be closed, sends the request to WMF Board.
1.2) Clear-cut situations for making a language eligible for Wikimedia
projects: the language has a valid ISO 639-3 code, there are no
significant issues in relation to the language itself, the population
of speakers is significant, request made by a native speaker. In this
case, any committee member can mark language / project eligible.
1.3) Approval without obvious formal requirements. No project will be
approved without them.
2) Simple majority (of those who expressed opinion)
2.1) Eligibility of a language with a valid ISO 639-3 code, but
without significant population of native speakers. (Note: this covers
ancient, constructed, reviving and languages with small number of
speakers.)
2.2) Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but
valid BCP 47 code. (Note: this covers Ecuadorian Quechua.)
2.3) Eligibility of a language with significant collision between
prescriptive and descriptive information. (Note: this covers
"macrolangauges".)
2.4) Project approval if not 1.3.
3) 2/3 majority (of those who expressed opinion)
3.1) Any change of the rules, including the committee's role in
possible changes of the Language proposal policy [2] and Closing
projects policy [1].
4) Consensus (of those who expressed opinion)
4.1) A new member of the Language committee should not be opposed by
any of the current committee member.
[1]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy
[2]
https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy
_______________________________________________
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
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org