[Foundation-l] Closing projects policy now official

[Samuel Klein]

> Also, I do not understand why the *language* committee has
> a role in this in the first place. Is closing projects often about whether
> or not it actually is a language (the expertise field of langcom)?

Most close requests are for projects that would not have been created
under the current strictr langcom guidelines.

Sometimes I think Langcom might better be called a "New Project
Editions" committee, since they review not only whether a new project
would be lingiustically distinct or has its orthography sorted out,
but also whether there is a sufficient body of editors to make a new
language-edition successful.    Both opening and closing arguments
about specific language-editions of a Project hinge at times on
language, and on the activity level of those advocating for
keeping/creating it.


On Sat, Jun 25, 2011 at 5:20 AM, Lodewijk <lodewijk at effeietsanders.org> wrote:

> could someone perhaps explain why the board delegated closing policy to
> *individual language committee members*? Because as I read it, this advice
> to the board is given by one individual, even if the rest of the committee
> disagrees

I don't understand this part myself.  But every committee has a
certain leeway to decide how they will reach decisions.


>> *Sj and Ting informed us that Board has agreed with the policy after the
>> discussion.
>> *
<
> If i understand right that was in Berlin. So the Board had 2 months to put
> that in a resolution, and didn't. That doesn't sound as a approval to me.

The proposed LangCom policy update was shared within the past few weeks.

The Board didn't hold a vote or pass a resolution; as with other
langcom recommendations, we discussed the proposed changes and had the
option to veto them but did not.
I think this is a fine way for LangCom to present proposed closures of
language-editions to the Board, where there is no community consensus.
[For comparison:  any group is welcome to present recommendations, or
suggest resolution language, to the Board at any time; however this
goes smoother when there is a process laid out ahead of time.]

I don't think this new langcom policy should override the existing
option of using community consensus to close a project -- that simply
happens very rarely.

SJ