Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
56 messages Options
123
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

David Gerard-2
On 26 August 2010 00:39, Marcus Buck <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  An'n 26.08.2010 00:41, hett David Gerard schreven:
>> On 25 August 2010 23:34, Marcus Buck<[hidden email]>  wrote:

>>> Gerard Meijssen keeps his contributions to
>>> the discussions secret

>> Is this true? If so, what is the rationale? Described like that, that
>> sounds ridiculous and unacceptable.

> Well, the latest archive (June 2009) is here:
> <http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Language_committee/Archives/2009-06>
> The other committee members' posts are shown, but Gerard's are all
> replaced with: <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
> Somewhere on Meta there is a discussion years ago (I cannot recall
> whether I asked him or whether it was somebody else who asked) where
> Gerard explains his decision. I am unable to find it (perhaps it was
> removed from the public archives? ;-) ). But if I remember correctly his
> answer was not that helpful. It was something along the lines of "I have
> my reasons, but I cannot disclose them in public".


Gerard, do you have anything to say about this? I really don't see how
this is considered acceptable. Perhaps you can explain.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Guillaume Paumier
Hi,

On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 4:46 PM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> Gerard, do you have anything to say about this? I really don't see how
> this is considered acceptable. Perhaps you can explain.

Rather than focusing on one specific person who didn't opt in, it
would be more helpful imho to reconsider the "private vs public
archives" question. If the community feels the content of the list
should be disclosed publicly to increase transparency, then a decision
should be taken to make the archives public. If this decision is taken
and some committee members are unhappy with it, they're free to
resign. We can hardly criticize someone for not opting in to disclose
publicly what they write on a private mailing list.

--
Guillaume Paumier
[[m:User:guillom]]
http://www.gpaumier.org

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

M. Williamson
In reply to this post by Mike Peel
On Wed, Aug 25, 2010 at 1:42 PM, Michael Peel <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Erm ... huh?
>
> 1) If you're interested in helping, and have experience/knowledge of languages, then get involved with the committee.

I have wanted to be part of the committee since before its inception,
but back then I felt I would probably not be welcome. Now, I'm not
sure what the process is and I'm also unsure as to whether or not I'm
wanted there.

> 2) They're getting things achieved - they're fostering the development of new language projects, making decisions, getting the projects started, and doing this in a very effective way. Compare this with the ineffectual procedure for starting an entirely new project in any language, which hasn't gotten anywhere in the last 3(?) years.

Let's see how many successful language versions of Wikipedia were
started before the language committee was created... hundreds. Now
let's see how many have been created in the last year:

North Frisian (10000 speakers in a wealthy Western European country)
Karachay-Balkar (400000 speakers in the Caucasus, again, as far as I
can tell, Europe)
Picard (perhaps 500000 speakers in another wealthy Western European country)

That's three. It is my firm belief that some of the requirements of
the language committee set the bar too high for new language editions,
requiring infrastructure to be built, interface translated and content
created, all to degrees that seem unnecessary to me. Yes, these
measures often ensure that a new Wiki will be successful within a very
short period of time, but at what cost? The exclusion of dozens of
requests in languages that already have content and community dying to
get started.

> 3) Please point to _recent_ examples where they've made a bad choice (i.e. Klingon doesn't count, as that was before their time). I'm not aware of any.

Inaction and setting the bar too high, as well as excluding Ancient
Greek WP against what seemed at the time to be community consensus
against such exclusion, count as bad decisions for me. Overregulation
of the Incubator, including deletion of painstakingly created content
(for example, the Riverense Portuñol test WP) just because there is no
valid ISO code yet also strikes me as not only counterproductive but
also cruel, although I'm not sure this is within the remit of the
language committee.

> I agree that it's not good that they have a hidden discussion forum; as much as possible of the discussion leading up to a new project should be public, and i can't see a reason for secrecy. Apart from that, though, I don't understand these (somewhat bitchy) comments at all...

Debates about languages have been going on since nearly the beginning
of Wikipedia. This is just a continuation of the same old stuff.

-m.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Ray Saintonge
In reply to this post by Muhammad Yahia
Muhammad Yahia wrote:

>> Exactly what I thought first. But he's from ar.wp, so I guess he's
>> referring to arz.wp,
>>    
> I hope you realize there are two different ppl in that quote above (it's
> mis-attributing it to me, and it seems like I am agreeing with myself :) ).
> I personally dont have any current issues with arz.wp and I hope the
> discussion does not go into that direction, because really my points were
> not about a certain project.
>
>  
The problem with "I guess he's referring to ..." is that it's entirely
speculative.  It adds a dimension that may or may not be supported by
facts.  If the issue is about the general operational procedures of the
language committee, their decision in regards to a single language
should not become the focus.

Ray

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
Hoi,
I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is
another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
repercussions in the professional sphere. When this was discussed in the
past, I was and I still am of the opinion that because of this it would be
best to have a confidential list.

Some members were of the opinion that this was not what they wanted for
their contributions, they decided to disregard the agreed need for
confidentiality and opt out. It just so happens that I am the most prolific
member of the list.

As to the reason for the language committee, at the time there was a growing
backlash against the growing list of Wikipedias. They were effectively dead
and many still are moribund. They were created using the premisse "if we
create it, they will come". As a result we have Wikipedias where the
language will not be recognised by people who *know* the language as being
properly written in that language. They are written by people who have a
1923 dictionary while others have a 19th century grammar book..

The backlash had the potential of stopping all new Wikipedias in any
language. To prevent this from happening, the language committee and its
policy were created. This policy was accepted by the board of trustees. With
the flow of new Wikipedias now down to a trickle, the new Wikipedias prove
that the policy functions. We do not have people clamouring for the end of
new projects.

The language policy requires a certain level of localisation before it
considers any new project. A new language requires that the "most used"
messages (some 500 messages) are localised. Subsequent projects currently
require the full localisation of MediaWiki core and the localisation of the
messages that belong to the extensions used by the Wikimedia Foundation.
These requirements have had a profound beneficial effect on the usability
for these languages. There are people who bemoan the fact that the
requirement for subsequent projects is tough, the rationale is that
localisation of MediaWiki requires continuous effort. This effort is
supported by the LocalisationUpdate extension that I asked a friend of mine
to develop. LocalisationUpdate ensures that new localisations coming into
SVN will go live within 24 hours.

In conclusion, yes there is confidentiality, the reason for this is
understood within the committee. The language policy does what it is
designed to do. We actively support languages and have been instrumental in
getting languages registered in the ISO-639-3 standard. The language
committee is not a talking shop, we implement an agreed policy.
Thanks,
      GerardM



On 26 August 2010 00:41, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 25 August 2010 23:34, Marcus Buck <[hidden email]> wrote:
>
> > Gerard Meijssen keeps his contributions to
> > the discussions secret
>
>
> Is this true? If so, what is the rationale? Described like that, that
> sounds ridiculous and unacceptable.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Muhammad Yahia
Hello,


> I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is
> another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
> contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
> repercussions in the professional sphere. When this was discussed in the
> past, I was and I still am of the opinion that because of this it would be
> best to have a confidential list.
>
>
This is not really saying much (if anything at all). It just translates to
"a member who we will not tell you anything about has his own reasons which
you cannot know".


   - "repercussions in the professional sphere' is a really vague reason.
   Helping wikipedia choose what languages to create sites for will have
   'repercussions' that are that harmful to a scholar?
   - How useful is that scholar anyway? I see most of the 'censored'
   contributions are yours, if this person is not that active to begin with,
   why should we accomodate such a peculiar situation? Does he/she provide such
   a unique view that no one else out there can provide that input and we need
   to accomodate him?
   - I don't want to make this about you, but since as you said you are one
   of the most active, and therefore I personally can hardly understand most of
   the discussions with you censored out. I have to ask, If I somehow swallow
   that this person has sound personal reasons and we need him, yet this person
   may make one or two contributions per year, why do the rest of the
   discussions have to be private? His/her contributions do not preclude
   transparency as much as the other censored replies.


--
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Federico Leva (Nemo)
In reply to this post by Nathan Awrich
Nathan, 26/08/2010 00:01:
> It's true that the work of the Language Community stands out as one of
> the few areas of community participation (in that the LangCom members
> are not employees of the WMF) closed to public or community
> observation.

Few? There are some ten private "community" wikis
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_wikis#Private_wikis with
associated mailing list and an unknown number of private lists (cf.
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Mailing_lists/Standardization#Privacy_options 
). Sometimes it makes sense; I don't have an opinion on LangCom.

Nemo

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Andre Engels
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 5:54 AM, Gerard Meijssen
<[hidden email]> wrote:

> The backlash had the potential of stopping all new Wikipedias in any
> language. To prevent this from happening, the language committee and its
> policy were created. This policy was accepted by the board of trustees. With
> the flow of new Wikipedias now down to a trickle, the new Wikipedias prove
> that the policy functions. We do not have people clamouring for the end of
> new projects.

It may be proof in your definition, it is not in mine. The first
measure of success should be the *number* of succesful starts, not the
percentage. If you bring success from 50% to 100% by accepting only
1/4 of what would have been accepted before (note that these are just
an example - I have not researched any of these numbers), the
*percentage* of succeeded new projects may have doubled, but the
*number* has halved.

> The language
> committee is not a talking shop, we implement an agreed policy.

Agreed by whom? Is there any way to influence this policy and/or its
implementation?

--
André Engels, [hidden email]

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

David Gerard-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
On 26 August 2010 04:54, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

> I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is
> another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
> contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
> repercussions in the professional sphere. When this was discussed in the
> past, I was and I still am of the opinion that because of this it would be
> best to have a confidential list.


This is in no way whatsoever an explanation or justification.

What sort of things are *you* saying that you don't want anyone else
to hear? If not personal information that should be kept confidential,
then what sort of things are you actually saying that will
professionally damage you or someone else?

No, your deliberations should *not* be secret unless there is an
overwhelmingly good reason. You are not providing one.


> In conclusion, yes there is confidentiality, the reason for this is
> understood within the committee.


Then I'm sure you can explain it in terms that make it obviously clear
why this is.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Other members of the LC can confirm to you that there is little need to
discuss things on our list. Most mails are boringly business like.

When you find the explanation provided not enough, then that is tough. At
the time we were really happy to gain a new member with its qualifications.
I am not willing to abandon people now for opportunistic reasons. We were
really happy and fortunate deepening the experience of the LC as a group. As
there was a requirement for confidentiality, it was and is in my opinion not
fair to filter only one person out.

The added benefit of confidentiality is that we are more free to discuss
things. It limits the amount of double talk a lot.  As a consequence there
is hardly any pre-cooking of mails going on. The language committee is not
the only confidential list. Its remit is extremely limited. Compare that
with the internal, the chapter, the cultural list who are confidential often
for reasons that are as appropriate.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 26 August 2010 09:44, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 26 August 2010 04:54, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> > I am not the only one that keep my contributions confidential. There is
> > another member of the LC who has good personal reasons to have the
> > contributions not publicly available. The reason is that there may be
> > repercussions in the professional sphere. When this was discussed in the
> > past, I was and I still am of the opinion that because of this it would
> be
> > best to have a confidential list.
>
>
> This is in no way whatsoever an explanation or justification.
>
> What sort of things are *you* saying that you don't want anyone else
> to hear? If not personal information that should be kept confidential,
> then what sort of things are you actually saying that will
> professionally damage you or someone else?
>
> No, your deliberations should *not* be secret unless there is an
> overwhelmingly good reason. You are not providing one.
>
>
> > In conclusion, yes there is confidentiality, the reason for this is
> > understood within the committee.
>
>
> Then I'm sure you can explain it in terms that make it obviously clear
> why this is.
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Marcus Buck-2
  An'n 26.08.2010 14:20, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> Hoi,
> Other members of the LC can confirm to you that there is little need to
> discuss things on our list. Most mails are boringly business like.
If it's boring there is no reason to keep it secret. So no argument for
your position.
> When you find the explanation provided not enough, then that is tough. At
> the time we were really happy to gain a new member with its qualifications.
> I am not willing to abandon people now for opportunistic reasons. We were
> really happy and fortunate deepening the experience of the LC as a group. As
> there was a requirement for confidentiality, it was and is in my opinion not
> fair to filter only one person out.
You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a
single person, it's you and one more committee member. I don't like
speaking in mysteries. The second, so far unnamed member whose posts are
secret is User:Karen. She seems to be solely active on the mailing list
and has zero edits in the wiki. Some info about her is in the edit
history of her user page on Meta. I have no specific reason to doubt
that she is a competent contributor to the committee's discussions, but
on the other hand there seems to be not a single word from her mouth
publicly documented on the committee's home wiki Meta and not a single
bit of information available about her qualifications or the reasons and
circumstances she became a member of the committee.

I have no idea why you put the word 'opportunistic' in your comment.
According to Wikipedia "opportunism" is:
"[..] the conscious policy and practice of taking selfish advantage of
circumstances, with little regard for principles."

"Making decisions that affect the public (like the creation of new
Wikimedia projects) public and transparent" is a principle (a very
important principle). That's the exact opposite of opportunism.
> The added benefit of confidentiality is that we are more free to discuss
> things. It limits the amount of double talk a lot.  As a consequence there
> is hardly any pre-cooking of mails going on.
Any decision of the committee should be based on facts and the language
proposal policy defines which facts are to be considered. So if you
abstain from personal judgements in your decisions there is just no
reason that could cause external criticism. And if it should be the case
that you and Karen make statements in the discussions (the others do
not, as I can check in the archives) that would make mandatory the
application of double talk to be acceptable when uttered in public, I'd
find that worrying.
> The language committee is not
> the only confidential list. Its remit is extremely limited. Compare that
> with the internal, the chapter, the cultural list who are confidential often
> for reasons that are as appropriate.
What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The things you do in
your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing
lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to
object to wrong or bad decisions, to give additional input, to
understand decisions etc. That's the basic idea behind transparency.
Internal-l was created as an internal counterpart to foundation-l on
purpose for discussions that cannot be done in public (e.g. for legal
reasons). I hope and assume internal-l sticks to this purpose and all
topics that don't require privacy are discussed on public lists. I don't
know the reasons why the chapter and cultural lists are internal, I have
not even ever heard about cultural list (what is it?), I assume there is
a reason. If there is no specific reason they should be open and
transparent.

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

David Gerard-2
On 26 August 2010 14:50, Marcus Buck <[hidden email]> wrote:

> What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The things you do in
> your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing
> lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to
> object to wrong or bad decisions, to give additional input, to
> understand decisions etc. That's the basic idea behind transparency.
> Internal-l was created as an internal counterpart to foundation-l on
> purpose for discussions that cannot be done in public (e.g. for legal
> reasons). I hope and assume internal-l sticks to this purpose and all
> topics that don't require privacy are discussed on public lists.


Pretty much. (Most recent exception was personal congratulations on
the birth of a child.) There's a principle that anything that doesn't
need to be confidential should go to foundation-l as well. (Some
people read internal-l but not foundation-l.)


>I don't
> know the reasons why the chapter and cultural lists are internal, I have
> not even ever heard about cultural list (what is it?), I assume there is
> a reason. If there is no specific reason they should be open and
> transparent.


+1

Gerard has offered *no* substantive reason the language committee list
needs such provisions, and instead has offered spurious
counter-attacks and claimed it's an attempt to push people off for
"opportunistic reasons".

It's not. Gerard, it's asking you why on earth you need a secrecy
provision no-one else has, and for you - or anyone else on the
language committee - to explain precisely why this is required, and
why it should be allowed to stand.

Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible
explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this
is a requirement, it can be explained, as Gerard did not.


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Gerard Meijssen-3
In reply to this post by Marcus Buck-2
Hoi,
It is opportunistic to drop someone who helped when it was most needed
because of some people arguing for this. In my opinion this is extremely bad
form.
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 26 August 2010 15:50, Marcus Buck <[hidden email]> wrote:

>  An'n 26.08.2010 14:20, hett Gerard Meijssen schreven:
> > Hoi,
> > Other members of the LC can confirm to you that there is little need to
> > discuss things on our list. Most mails are boringly business like.
> If it's boring there is no reason to keep it secret. So no argument for
> your position.
> > When you find the explanation provided not enough, then that is tough. At
> > the time we were really happy to gain a new member with its
> qualifications.
> > I am not willing to abandon people now for opportunistic reasons. We were
> > really happy and fortunate deepening the experience of the LC as a group.
> As
> > there was a requirement for confidentiality, it was and is in my opinion
> not
> > fair to filter only one person out.
> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
> transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a
> single person, it's you and one more committee member. I don't like
> speaking in mysteries. The second, so far unnamed member whose posts are
> secret is User:Karen. She seems to be solely active on the mailing list
> and has zero edits in the wiki. Some info about her is in the edit
> history of her user page on Meta. I have no specific reason to doubt
> that she is a competent contributor to the committee's discussions, but
> on the other hand there seems to be not a single word from her mouth
> publicly documented on the committee's home wiki Meta and not a single
> bit of information available about her qualifications or the reasons and
> circumstances she became a member of the committee.
>
> I have no idea why you put the word 'opportunistic' in your comment.
> According to Wikipedia "opportunism" is:
> "[..] the conscious policy and practice of taking selfish advantage of
> circumstances, with little regard for principles."
>
> "Making decisions that affect the public (like the creation of new
> Wikimedia projects) public and transparent" is a principle (a very
> important principle). That's the exact opposite of opportunism.
> > The added benefit of confidentiality is that we are more free to discuss
> > things. It limits the amount of double talk a lot.  As a consequence
> there
> > is hardly any pre-cooking of mails going on.
> Any decision of the committee should be based on facts and the language
> proposal policy defines which facts are to be considered. So if you
> abstain from personal judgements in your decisions there is just no
> reason that could cause external criticism. And if it should be the case
> that you and Karen make statements in the discussions (the others do
> not, as I can check in the archives) that would make mandatory the
> application of double talk to be acceptable when uttered in public, I'd
> find that worrying.
> > The language committee is not
> > the only confidential list. Its remit is extremely limited. Compare that
> > with the internal, the chapter, the cultural list who are confidential
> often
> > for reasons that are as appropriate.
> What has a limited remit to do with transparency? The things you do in
> your limited remit are extremely relevant to some groups. Our mailing
> lists should be public whenever possible so people have the chance to
> object to wrong or bad decisions, to give additional input, to
> understand decisions etc. That's the basic idea behind transparency.
> Internal-l was created as an internal counterpart to foundation-l on
> purpose for discussions that cannot be done in public (e.g. for legal
> reasons). I hope and assume internal-l sticks to this purpose and all
> topics that don't require privacy are discussed on public lists. I don't
> know the reasons why the chapter and cultural lists are internal, I have
> not even ever heard about cultural list (what is it?), I assume there is
> a reason. If there is no specific reason they should be open and
> transparent.
>
> Marcus Buck
> User:Slomox
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Muhammad Yahia
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]
> wrote:

> Hoi,
> It is opportunistic to drop someone who helped when it was most needed
> because of some people arguing for this. In my opinion this is extremely
> bad
> form.
> Thanks,
>      GerardM
>
>
I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below:

You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not

about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be

transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a

single person, it's you and one more committee member.


--
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
That is an argument I do not agree with.
Thanks,
       GerardM

On 26 August 2010 19:59, Muhammad Yahia <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:52 AM, Gerard Meijssen <
> [hidden email]
> > wrote:
>
> > Hoi,
> > It is opportunistic to drop someone who helped when it was most needed
> > because of some people arguing for this. In my opinion this is extremely
> > bad
> > form.
> > Thanks,
> >      GerardM
> >
> >
> I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below:
>
> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
>
> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
>
> transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a
>
> single person, it's you and one more committee member.
>
>
> --
> Best Regards,
> Muhammad Yahia
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

David Gerard-2
On 26 August 2010 19:13, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]> wrote:

>> I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below:
>> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
>> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
>> transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a
>> single person, it's you and one more committee member.

> That is an argument I do not agree with.


The language committee is behaving in a blatantly closed manner. You
are not even pretending to offer an excuse for this.

This is not adequate behaviour.

Are you really unable to justify why you don't want your messages to be read?


- d.

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Gerard Meijssen-3
Hoi,
Blatant: without any attempt at concealment; completely obvious (Wordnet). I
do not need an excuse, I did better; I provided an explanation. An
explanation that you care not to accept. I have also pointed out that I am
unwilling to drop people who have helped out for opportunistic reasons.

It would be opportunistic if I give in just to appease you. There is another
meaning for blatant: conspicuously and offensively loud (also Wordnet).
Thanks,
      GerardM

On 26 August 2010 21:15, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:

> On 26 August 2010 19:13, Gerard Meijssen <[hidden email]>
> wrote:
>
> >> I think this has already been answered. Quoting Marcus below:
> >> You try to make it appear like an attack on a single person. It's not
> >> about removing any person from the committee, we just want them to be
> >> transparent and stand to their words publicly. And it's also not a
> >> single person, it's you and one more committee member.
>
> > That is an argument I do not agree with.
>
>
> The language committee is behaving in a blatantly closed manner. You
> are not even pretending to offer an excuse for this.
>
> This is not adequate behaviour.
>
> Are you really unable to justify why you don't want your messages to be
> read?
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> [hidden email]
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Marcus Buck-2
In reply to this post by Gerard Meijssen-3
  Gerard, would you be so kind and post a message on your mailing list
informing your co-members about this discussion and inviting them to
join in with their opinions? Would be especially nice to hear from Karen!

Is that okay?

Marcus Buck
User:Slomox

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Jesse (Pathoschild)
In reply to this post by David Gerard-2
On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 10:14 AM, David Gerard <[hidden email]> wrote:
> Can anyone else from the language committee offer a credible
> explanation of their special requirement for secrecy? Surely if this
> is a requirement, it can be explained, as Gerard did not.

Hello David,

There are some cases where confidentiality is necessary. We routinely
ask external experts for their evaluation of the test project content
before project approval, as Yaroslav mentioned early in this
discussion. These external persons are sometimes in situations where
speaking negatively about the content may be seen as an attack on
nationalist or culturalist interests, and put them at risk of
professional or personal reprisal. These persons are offered
confidentiality to protect them and to ensure we get their honest
opinion.

However, most content can be safely made public and is published to
the public archives if the email authors agree. These have not been
updated recently, but only because I have not had time to do so; they
should be updated in the coming months, now that someone has joined
with public archival as one of their goals.

By the way, the language committee never makes official statements.
Any comments from Gerard or I are our personal comments.

--
Yours cordially,
Jesse (Pathoschild)

_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Sakha Wikipedia passed 7000 articles

Muhammad Yahia
Hi Jesse,


> There are some cases where confidentiality is necessary. We routinely
> ask external experts for their evaluation of the test project content
> before project approval, as Yaroslav mentioned early in this
> discussion. These external persons are sometimes in situations where
> speaking negatively about the content may be seen as an attack on
> nationalist or culturalist interests, and put them at risk of
> professional or personal reprisal. These persons are offered
> confidentiality to protect them and to ensure we get their honest
> opinion.
>

This was not Gerard's argument about why members of the committee do not
disclose their discussions. I personally totally understand that need but I
also think this is a case-by-case thing. Disclosing these interactions or
not based on the discretion of the committee is perfectly fine by me.


>
> However, most content can be safely made public and is published to
> the public archives if the email authors agree. These have not been
> updated recently, but only because I have not had time to do so; they
> should be updated in the coming months, now that someone has joined
> with public archival as one of their goals.
>
>
This is a repeat of your position earlier. It does not address my concern. I
personally was not able to follow the discussion threads with all the
censored messages from committee members, not outside sources.

--
Best Regards,
Muhammad Yahia
_______________________________________________
foundation-l mailing list
[hidden email]
Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
123