-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi,
The process of a language is quite straight forward. As the requirements for
a new project are well published and by and large well known, When a
linguistic entity has an ISO-639-3 code and when it is not a constructed
language or an extinct language, it becomes eligible.
If that were it we wouldn't have a language committee. :)
National and subnational variants of languages have always been more
difficult, stuck between the pressures of localism, nationalism,
supranationalism, the desire to provide resources in the local language,
the desire to provide a common bridge and a larger, more vibrant community.
Given that all our requests for the creation of new
projects are approved in
this way, there is hardly any need for you to question that due process has
been followed. Again, nothing happens if the language committee is not in
agreement. The current practice has resulted in more viable projects, it has
lead to an improvement in the localisation of our projects. I would argue
that the current process has proven itself.
Given that we're kicking the whole process of site setup back into gear,
and we'll be needing to rely on your process, I'd appreciate it as a
personal favor if you could confirm with a quick roll-call vote of the
committee that the committee is satisfied with its process and the
outcome of recent discussions and decisions before we continue.
I'm not asking just for your opinion, or of anyone's opinion who's not
involved in the committee. I just want to confirm that the committee is
in fact currently operational and satisfied with its process.
- -- brion
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.8 (Darwin)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla -
http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iEYEARECAAYFAkkgoUAACgkQwRnhpk1wk44hdQCgkvgD7Wq/5mvnuBRzd4Y4KjDy
Vn4AoNvu5FDl23WVcLpPGAPsw6S8dNr3
=CX5N
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----