Simple majority without serious discussion is not sufficient for a BPC primary code. Such codes would be unusual, and we should be in agreement about it because unusual is something one should be careful about.
On 13 Jun 2017, at 03:42, MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com wrote:
The proposal exactly is that the eligibility of such languages should be decided by a (simple majority) vote. Or do I misunderstand the objection?
2017-05-19 3:32 GMT+02:00 Michael Everson everson@evertype.com: I agree with Gerard. A primary code in BPC 47 would be a rarity, and not something to be adopted here without a proper vote.
Michael Everson
On 19 May 2017, at 01:24, Gerard Meijssen gerard.meijssen@gmail.com wrote:
I do not support the Notion of a simple majority When there is no ISO639 3. I want arguments and eventualy a vote. Thanks, GerardM
Op vr 19 mei 2017 om 01:08 schreef MF-Warburg mfwarburg@googlemail.com Forgot one important point:
:''Eligibility of a language without a valid ISO 639-3 code, but with a valid BCP 47 code.'' This would be a novelty.
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
Langcom mailing list Langcom@lists.wikimedia.org https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom