[Foundation-l] Community draft of language proposal policy

[Milos Rancic]

On Fri, Sep 5, 2008 at 4:03 AM, Tim Starling <tstarling at wikimedia.org> wrote:
> Jesse Plamondon-Willard wrote:
>> The community draft for a language proposal policy stagnates while
>> some complain fashionably about the lack of community involvement in
>> the approval process (and the subcommittee unfairness/conspiracy/evil
>> thereof). If you're interested enough to comment on the policy on
>> mailing lists, please comment on or edit the community draft.
>>
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
>>> http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Meta_talk:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft
>>
>
> Fair comment. I have edited the community draft as per the opinions
> expressed by several people on this list:
>
> Diff:
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta%3ALanguage_proposal_policy%2FCommunity_draft&diff=1165824&oldid=1165538>
>
> Permalink:
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=Meta:Language_proposal_policy/Community_draft&oldid=1165824>

Finally, more reasonable suggestion. Relying strictly on ISO 639 codes
is not the best idea.

The only question which I have is: why to move from ISO 639 to RFC
4646 codes? Is there any advantage and if so, which?