Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, It is quite simple; I asked for a comment and I got as an answer that the Arabic languages were not different from other languages we considered. Nobody dissented. After a week I gave the eligible status to Egyptian Arabic and we have a precedent for the eligibility for the Arabic languages. This is what I have reported several times already... Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Ting Chen <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, Transparancy exists when it is clear what has been said and done. You do not need the exact text and you do not need to know every detail. All relevant details have been made public. You know that the information was truthful because otherwise I would have been corrected. Thanks, Gerard On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Ting Chen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>> wrote: Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Happy that you agree that we are doing a good job. > > As to finding another expert, I am quite happy with the one we have. Your > proposal that we say something along the lines you indicate is not > practical. For your information, you do work also in a non-observable way. > Why should your work be different ? > Thanks, > Gerard > > Personnally, I would vote against any decision on the board that cannot be made transparent. Sorry. Ting _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I don't understand you. Sorry. Milos said you need not publish names, just arguments that are exchanged. You answered him that this is not possible. So, whatever decision you made, the arguments that are exchanged inside the LangCom that ultimately resulted in the decision cannot be published. If this is not intransparent I don't know what is. Ting
Well, in this case I agree with Milos, that you should have asked one more expert. In principle you asked an anonymous expert and he made a statement. This statement is made without argumentations and reasons. The members of the committee accepted this statement without argumentation and the decision is made.
Because the issue is sensible, and because there are objections inside the community, I find the decision process described above not very reassuring.
Ting
Hoi, The expert is anything but anonymous. What I gave you is the reason why we do not have a public mailing list. The arguments as they happened have been published. There is nothing more.
You have to appreciate that for us it is also a hobby. The policy is as it is to prevent endless bickering and to provide a predictable result. This is what we do. When people are against on principle, there is no point in further discussion. They are against on principle and will use any argument to get their way.
I care for languages, I care for projects to do well. Any language. I have no reasons to treat languages differently and the policy and the implementation of the policy proves this. People who oppose have their special interest at heart. They are welcome to their position but it does not make for predictable results if we give in to all the bleeding hearts.
In the end you will only hear from people who do not get their way. The people who are happy with the results of the policy you do not hear.
In the mean time the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia has been approved 82 days ago. I think if there is one problem with policies like the language policy, it is that they are not effectively supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. I think the waiting for the creation of projects is a disgrace. This is not specific to this project, it has been a constant struggle to get projects created.
NB the language policy is an policy endorsed by the board.
Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 2:47 PM, Ting Chen [email protected] wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote:
Hoi, It is quite simple; I asked for a comment and I got as an answer that the Arabic languages were not different from other languages we considered. Nobody dissented. After a week I gave the eligible status to Egyptian Arabic and we have a precedent for the eligibility for the Arabic languages. This is what I have reported several times already... Thanks, GerardM
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 1:09 PM, Ting Chen <[email protected] mailto:[email protected]> wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote: Hoi, Transparancy exists when it is clear what has been said and done. You do not need the exact text and you do not need to know every detail. All relevant details have been made public. You know that the information was truthful because otherwise I would have been corrected. Thanks, Gerard On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 11:28 AM, Ting Chen <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>>>wrote:
Gerard Meijssen wrote: > Hoi, > Happy that you agree that we are doing a good job. > > As to finding another expert, I am quite happy with the one we have. Your > proposal that we say something along the lines you indicate is not > practical. For your information, you do work also in a non-observable way. > Why should your work be different ? > Thanks, > Gerard > > Personnally, I would vote against any decision on the board that cannot be made transparent. Sorry. Ting _______________________________________________ foundation-l mailing list [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> <mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l I don't understand you. Sorry. Milos said you need not publish names, just arguments that are exchanged. You answered him that this is not possible. So, whatever decision you made, the arguments that are exchanged inside the LangCom that ultimately resulted in the decision cannot be published. If this is not intransparent I don't know what is. TingWell, in this case I agree with Milos, that you should have asked one more expert. In principle you asked an anonymous expert and he made a statement. This statement is made without argumentations and reasons. The members of the committee accepted this statement without argumentation and the decision is made.
Because the issue is sensible, and because there are objections inside the community, I find the decision process described above not very reassuring.
Ting
foundation-l mailing list [email protected] Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen [email protected]wrote:
Hoi, The expert is anything but anonymous. What I gave you is the reason why we do not have a public mailing list. The arguments as they happened have been published. There is nothing more.
You have to appreciate that for us it is also a hobby. The policy is as it is to prevent endless bickering and to provide a predictable result. This is what we do. When people are against on principle, there is no point in further discussion. They are against on principle and will use any argument to get their way.
Yet LangCom is also to be held at fault. Some members of said committee have adopted a stance of "those are the rules, no exceptions. If you don't like the rules, get consensus to change them."
Sometimes rules can be bent, sometimes they should be broken entirely. It all comes down to using common sense.
I care for languages, I care for projects to do well. Any language. I have no reasons to treat languages differently and the policy and the implementation of the policy proves this.
Sometimes I think you care more for minority languages than the speakers do themselves. This is a good thing! We need more people caring about languages.
People who oppose have their special interest at heart. They are welcome to their position but it does not make for predictable results if we give in to all the bleeding hearts.
God forbid we show some empathy...
In the end you will only hear from people who do not get their way. The people who are happy with the results of the policy you do not hear.
Of course. Complainers are always louder than those grateful. Fact of human nature.
In the mean time the Egyptian Arabic Wikipedia has been approved 82 days ago. I think if there is one problem with policies like the language policy, it is that they are not effectively supported by the Wikimedia Foundation. I think the waiting for the creation of projects is a disgrace. This is not specific to this project, it has been a constant struggle to get projects created.
As you said above, the LangCom is volunteers. So are most of the developers and systems administrators. They have lives too :-)
-Chad
Hello
On Wed, Oct 8, 2008 at 6:02 AM, Gerard Meijssen [email protected]wrote:
Hoi, The expert is anything but anonymous. What I gave you is the reason why we do not have a public mailing list. The arguments as they happened have been published. There is nothing more.
Can you provide links to where they have been published? When I go to the proposals I find only the basic stuff (there is an ISO code, there is people willing to work on it and there are speakers of the language). You said lang com considered the concerns I have put forward but yet I dont see what is their argument about them anywhere. In essence, what I see is like an AfD, people go in , talk it out, with little involvment from lang com, and then you guys come in and with little reasoning other than the existing rules, you approve. If there are expanded arguments to the decision, I would like to see them and this is transparency IMHO.