[Foundation-l] Meta-arbcom (was: the foundations of...)

[Aphaia]

I am afraid I am lost in this thread, and in particularly in this
"multilingual vs monolingual (one lingua franca) dispute.

That if a working team should be multilingual or not depends on its
purpose highly: what they would like to solve, whom they would like to
involve or interact etc. And also there is always a possibility to ask
for help of the people not directly involved. Like we are doing on
OTRS, some committees etc.

Both directions have their merits and demerits. Personally I prefer to
enforce multilingualism but it requires us more workload, more effort
and sometimes certain degree of ambiguity and potential
misrepresentation as well as that a monolingual direction may bring.
As for the body discussed their working language, their official
language (i.e. the language(s) in which they state officially) and the
language they may accept / can communicate to interested parties in
each cases may vary. And it is the purpose and intention that
determined what is the ideal set for the proposed body. People who
support a given direction is accountable why the set they prefer is
the best available one regarding to the issues with which they will
solve and issues they should leave or not completely take care.

I am afraid I missed this kind of argument. While I have a great
interest to enhance the multilingualism on the Wikimedia project both
content-based activity and organizational one,  for this issue,
currently I would like to stay abstain.

On Jan 6, 2008 3:53 AM, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> Imho, if you want something not to succeed, there is a very easy way:
> pinn yourself down on the details. The details will follow from the
> big lines, and if there are no big lines yet, it is not veyr useful to
> start with the details. And the "mere"  was compared with the main
> question imho, at which I hear nothing almost, what exactly the
> purpose would be.
>
> BR, lodewijk
>
> 2008/1/5, Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton at gmail.com>:
>
> > On 05/01/2008, effe iets anders <effeietsanders at gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Guys, please,
> > >
> > > The language is just a mere practical matter. Please let's first come
> > > to the conclusion what the *purpose* would be of this meta-arbcom
> > > *before* we even start with discussing issues like this. i know it is
> > > very easy to get into details, but let's remain focussed. Does anyone
> > > have a good proposal for which topics the arbcom should be used and
> > > what type of members we would need?
> >
> > It's a practical matter, but I don't think it's a "mere" one. It is a
> > very important issue that needs to be resolved. What kind of cases the
> > committee will consider is also an important issue, but there's no
> > reason we can't discuss them both.
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: http://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>



-- 
KIZU Naoko
http://d.hatena.ne.jp/Britty (in Japanese)
Quote of the Day (English): http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/WQ:QOTD