Language committee/Archives/2006-12

From Meta, a Wikimedia project coordination wiki
For a summary of discussions, see the archives index.

Old requests, the Belarusian normative Wikipedia, Pathoschild[edit]

The subcommittee decided that old requests will not be processed, the Belarussian normative Wikipedia might be created, and Pathoschild joins the committee.

time User comment
19:10:38 Pathoschild has joined #spc-lang-com
19:10:46 Pathoschild Hey.
19:10:46 SabineCretella hi :-)
19:10:53 Pathoschild :)
19:10:57 SabineCretella well: I would say we are not going to do it
19:11:07 SabineCretella otherwise we would not sleep anymore
19:11:55 SabineCretella Belarus is another one of these nice thingies ...
19:12:04 Pathoschild Hmm... GerardM implied you would in an email he sent me. I'm wondering whether I should keep closing old requests and inviting users to re-open under the policy, or just let the subcommittee deal with them.
19:12:19 SabineCretella whoops ...
19:12:34 SabineCretella all the old language requests??? are you sure he understood well?
19:12:55 Pathoschild I don't know; maybe he just wasn't aware of how many there are. :)
19:13:07 SabineCretella that would be a massive amount of work where 90% does not really make sense
19:13:15 Pathoschild Yep.
19:13:19 SabineCretella I'll talk to him about that ...
19:13:42 SabineCretella It is already difficult to keep pace with the actual things
19:14:00 Pathoschild nods.
19:14:07 SabineCretella Btw. as for Belarus: we had someone having a look at it ...
19:14:41 SabineCretella There are some issues on contents to be solved - also on ru.wikipedia - the thing is: Gerard and me will not be here next week
19:15:04 SabineCretella no ... siberian
19:15:05 SabineCretella sorry
19:15:15 SabineCretella it is simply getting too much these days
19:15:39 Pathoschild nods.
19:16:18 SabineCretella he is also looking at the other wikis around - just to understand
19:16:51 Pathoschild One other question, though you may not like the extra work it implies. GerardM implied the subcommittee will be making all decisions on requests. If so, I'll remove the Meta administrators from the decision-making part of the policy and shuffle in the subcommittee. Right?
19:16:58 Pathoschild nods.
19:17:52 SabineCretella Well: I would like to see co-operation between meta and the langcom
19:17:54 Pathoschild I'm still not sure whether we'll have the subcommittee doing everything, or overseeing a shared workload with the administrators.
19:18:16 SabineCretella Some of us would also like to see you in the subcom
19:18:43 SabineCretella Others are not there at the moment, so we will ask them as soon as they are here
19:18:48 Pathoschild ok.
19:18:59 SabineCretella Then I will come back to you
19:19:26 Pathoschild When is the next meeting planned? I'd like to resolve how the workload will be managed soon, before the process is backlogged. :)
19:19:48 SabineCretella uhmmm ... good question
19:20:03 SabineCretella I'll try to propose a date in the week before Christmas
19:20:14 SabineCretella this means after the Wiki-meetup in Belgrad
19:20:19 Pathoschild ok.
19:20:21 SabineCretella Gerard will be there as well
19:21:22 SabineCretella I have to understand my time schedule in Germany to be able to find out some possible dates. I hop I will know that soon
19:21:59 Pathoschild nods.
19:22:18 SabineCretella Do you feel we need board approval for the Belarus language problem?
19:22:27 SabineCretella Because we have a proposal for that ...
19:25:06 Pathoschild I have no idea. Under the current policy, administrators and the subcommittee approve and deny requests, create a brief summary, and submit that to the board. That makes it much easier for the board to consider requests, since they don't have to read through the discussion. The subcommittee doesn't seem to support the current policy, though, so I have no idea how we'll manage this and other requests yet.
19:26:09 SabineCretella Well: we know we exist - we know we can handle certain stuff ... but ... sigh ...
19:26:21 SabineCretella I'll try to get that e-mail on the way
19:26:24 SabineCretella again
19:26:25 Pathoschild Thanks.
19:27 SabineCretella The Language Subcommittee of the Special Projects Committee

approximately a week ago had a meeting concerning, among other questions, the solution of the be.wikipedia problem.
Acutal state of the be.wikipedia is that it is written in a language
that does not conform to official standards. These standards were
created from the beginning of the XX century with its last amendment by
law in 1985. This means that the actual valid ortography and grammar has
its own history and moreover is based on public law. What we actually
have on that wikipedia is a "we would like to have" language. That means
pople are trying to get "the old times back". Well: nobody wants people
to deny to write and read an old version of a language, but the official
wikipedia for a language should respect the public language that is
taught at school and university, the language you will find legal
documents etc. in.
Therefore we propose the following way to solve the issue:

  • The Belarusian wikipedia that uses old ortography and grammar is moved
    to another domain name and will get in such a way its own right to
    exist. We suggest be-alt2005 (see notes about that below).
  • The official language code domain for Belarusian is being attributed
    to the official ortography and grammar.

Out of the many possibilities in the end the code be-alt2005 was chosen
based on the following reasons: the actual valid ortography and grammar
stems from the ortography and grammar of 1939 and before. So giving such
a code would mix up things. The new "we want this unofficial grammar and
ortography" was brought up in 2005 and so it is an alternation of the
actual official language that occurred in 2005, which takes up rules and
ortography from "ancient times".
I tried to keep this e-mail as simple as possible (it takes hours to
understand what was done when and how for Belarusian and it would take a

19:28 SabineCretella very long e-mail do explain this here again) - the whole history of the

language is well described on the English Wikipedia.
Of course any solution regarding languages will always have people that
are in favour or against - the above solution is the most logical one
that should suite all needs.

19:28:11 SabineCretella this is what we have
19:31:22 Pathoschild I'm not well-aware of the differences between the standardised and traditional Belarussian, so I can't really comment. I don't see the need to split them into separate wikis, but I imagine good reasons came up in the meeting.
19:33:05 SabineCretella Hmmmm ... should we take up this theme again in the meeting before Christmas?
19:33:43 SabineCretella I don't think the board will decide on this now and considering the Montenegrin bit and what will follow probably an integration makes sense
19:34:07 SabineCretella but: the main page should then be in th official version of Belarussian and not the old version
19:34:13 Pathoschild Yep.
19:34:20 SabineCretella the old version should be a subpage of the standardised version
19:34:52 SabineCretella that will be harder to get since the actual be.wikipedia was somewhat raped by the "we would like to have old times back" people
19:35:02 SabineCretella don't know if raped is the correct word
19:35:14 SabineCretella and they do not allow for standard language there
19:35:21 Pathoschild Perhaps they could just have separate pages with two category trees.
19:35:41 SabineCretella at least that is what I understood from Yurik
19:36:02 SabineCretella well yes, but if the page title is the same ... or disambiguation ...
19:36:06 SabineCretella ??
19:36:51 Pathoschild "Title (traditional)" and "Title (standard)", maybe? Or put them both on one page with Language select?
19:37:07 Pathoschild That wouldn't work well with very large pages, though.
19:37:26 SabineCretella better separate pages
19:37:31 Pathoschild Yep.
19:37:44 SabineCretella once we will have multilingual mediawiki it will be easier to transfer data
19:38:07 SabineCretella ok, I'll propose this again for the agenda
19:38:46 timichal (n=notafili@wikimedia/timichal) has joined #spc-lang-com
19:38:50 SabineCretella sometimes things simply don't happen by chance :-)
19:38:50 timichal hi kids
19:38:54 Pathoschild Is the agenda on a wiki page somewhere? It'd be easier to be organised if we have a centralised page for points we'll bring up.
19:38:57 Pathoschild Hey. :)
19:38:59 SabineCretella hi timichal :-)
19:39:04 timichal what's up?
19:39:13 SabineCretella be.wikipedia again
19:39:20 SabineCretella and to say the truth: I am happy that
19:39:28 SabineCretella a) or my mail did not reach the board
19:39:37 SabineCretella b) or they did not have time to talk about it
19:40:22 SabineCretella if montenegrin has to live with serbian ... then the official belorussian should live with the unofficial ortography
19:40:36 SabineCretella havin the official ortography as basis on be.wikipedia
19:40:58 SabineCretella will we propose this as a theme for the next meeting?
19:41:09 SabineCretella I'll try to schedule one in the week before christmas
19:41:11 Pathoschild They're mutually understandable; I don't think we should have wikis for individual dialects, standards, et cetera.
19:41:33 SabineCretella well on nap we have also various versions of nap
19:41:42 SabineCretella or better: we allow for them
19:42:35 SabineCretella the funny thing will be <a bit ironical> to have them take the pill ...
19:44:47 SabineCretella ok Pathoschild ... I have a nice majority here:
19:45:41 SabineCretella Gerard +1, Timichal +1, Berto +1, JHS +1, me +1, Karen and Ascander missing - I'd say: if you would like to be in the language committee: welcome and have fun :-)
19:46:01 SabineCretella to which e-mail address may I send my welcome message?
19:46:01 timichal could you create an account for him?
19:46:13 timichal or should I
19:46:19 SabineCretella on langcom?
19:46:21 timichal yes
19:46:24 timichal that reminds me
19:46:26 timichal OMG POLICY!
19:46:30 SabineCretella if you could do that, this would be great
19:46:34 timichal *I*, for one, totally forgot
19:46:37 SabineCretella I am down under with work
19:46:49 timichal and others apparently don't care
19:46:59 SabineCretella two meeting + finishing to write a presntation tomorrow
19:47:01 timichal looks at Pathoschild expectantly ;P
19:47:12 SabineCretella lol OMG?
19:48:11 Pathoschild Sorry, I was away a few minutes. :)
19:48:24 SabineCretella ahhhh .... read up please ;-)
19:48:34 timichal gimme your mail address Pathoschild
19:48:39 Pathoschild My email address is <...>. Thanks. :)
19:49:09 timichal The password for "Pathoschild" has been sent to <...>.
19:50:45 timichal User "Pathoschild" is now a sysop
19:51:25 Pathoschild Merci.
19:51:42 timichal you're welcome ;)
19:52:18 timichal I wonder what happens if XWin.exe get realtime priority 0:)
19:52:29 timichal *+correct english
19:54:24 SabineCretella Mail sent :-)
19:55:02 SabineCretella and now ... I am going to bed ... have to get up early
19:55:07 SabineCretella good night!!!
19:55:15 Pathoschild Good night.
19:55:34 timichal nn Sabine
19:58:20 Pathoschild Should we move the content at [] to the langcom wiki main page?
20:01:22 timichal if you want :)


This is an IRC discussion regarding policy on 30 December 2006. The discussion reached no consensus, but GerardM stated that he would create a new policy draft for consideration.

time user comment
14:23:43 Pathoschild has joined #spc-lang-com
14:33:04 Pathoschild has invited timichal to #spc-lang-com.
14:33:12 timichal (n=zatopek@wikimedia/timichal) has joined #spc-lang-com
14:33:15 Pathoschild Hey.
14:33:20 timichal Hi!
14:34:00 Pathoschild Any progress on getting the subcommittee on its feet?
14:34:25 Pathoschild has invited GerardM- to #spc-lang-com.
14:35:05 timichal I stopped trying when Gerard said everything had been prepared... (with correct verb tenses, too)
14:39:32 GerardM- (n=GerardM@*) has joined #spc-lang-com
14:39:37 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:40:19 Pathoschild Hey.
14:40:24 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:40:35 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:40:38 Pathoschild Thanks. :)
14:41:00 Pathoschild Any progress on organizing the subcommittee to start processing requests?
14:42:02 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:42:38 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:43:19 timichal Well, I lost all hope a while ago
14:43:53 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:43:54 timichal I'd stick "yet an another dead commitee" on us
14:44:08 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:44:33 Pathoschild The easiest way to go about it would be scheduled meetings with an agenda; in our next meeting we'd discuss all the points and requests listed at [].
14:46:04 timichal anynoe has sent spcom the new language proposal?
14:46:15 timichal we were supposed to do it half a month ago
14:46:46 Pathoschild A policy?
14:47:18 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:47:18 timichal The policy, yes
14:47:51 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:48:00 timichal Yes, that's what you told Dbl
14:48:01 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:48:08 Pathoschild It's not a policy; it's a hybrid essay and set of suggestions.
14:48:36 timichal Pathoschild: well, I wanted to edit it a bit, but Gerard said it was okay as it was
14:48:50 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:49:14 timichal so I thought someone sent it to SPcom as requested, they looked at it, accepted and everyone would be happy
14:49:26 timichal (damn those tenses)
14:50:04 timichal GerardM-: why what?
14:50:16 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:51:02 timichal Ask Pathoschild, I'll better go to shower
14:51:04 Pathoschild GerardM-: For one, it's all from the point of view of one user. A final policy should not state "... I'd go further:", for example. Second, it's very retrospective; it discusses previous processes a lot, instead of laying out a new process. It discusses what we need for a new policy, not a policy: "We need different people, we need to discuss, we need a way to exchange opinions etc. Imagine what would happen if also GENNYSAR and E. abu Filumena had some private problems ..."
14:51:06 timichal brb
14:52:07 Pathoschild It basically lays out one user's opinion on what we need, what should be changed, what is good or bad, et cetera. It's not a policy. It doesn't describe any process, or explain how requests will be processed.
14:52:46 Pathoschild ...particularly since the whole thing is signed "--Sabine 07:13, 6 June 2006 (UTC)".
14:54:25 Pathoschild The current policy being used, on the other hand, very specifically lays out the requirements, the process, how requests will be processed and how long that will take, who will decide, how users can maximize chances of getting their requests accepted, et cetera.
14:56:15 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:56:35 Pathoschild You'd prefer we count votes?
14:57:06 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:57:39 Pathoschild You can certainly make any comment you want, but voting will be ignored. I think "It exists, see proof" should outweight thirty users saying "No it doesn't! ~~~~".
14:58:24 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:59:06 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
14:59:16 Pathoschild I don't see why you oppose m:Meta:Language proposal policy, then; you seem to be agreeing with it.
15:01:50 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:02:16 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:02:25 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:02:57 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:03:03 Pathoschild Yes, and any Meta admin can discuss and change the decision. Until the subcommittee is ready to do something, it's the fairest system.
15:03:39 Pathoschild The subcommittee is free to make all decisions itself, if it can do it before we're backlogged again.
15:04:06 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:04:34 Pathoschild So we should change what you don't like, or write a new one. Sabine's comment is not a policy, though.
15:09:31 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:09:55 Pathoschild It's easy to edit. :)
15:11:16 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:12:57 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:17:56 Pathoschild It's far too informal; a policy should not state a user's opinion and thoughts. It does not describe any requirements (except a few suggestions and thoughts interspersed through the text), it does not lay out a process, it does not say who decides and how decisions are taken, et cetera. There are plenty of ideas in the text; maybe we could incorporate them in the current or a new policy. That page itself is just an essay describing Sabine's thoughts and opinions of the current process and how it should be changed, though.
15:18:32 Pathoschild It's not something we can enforce or interpret, and it doesn't help users make requests.
15:18:55 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:20:43 Pathoschild I wasn't there during that discussion, I don't think Karen was either, and timichal doesn't seem to agree. That's at least a third of the subcommittee who disagree with it or didn't have a say. Is there a log of that discussion?
15:20:49 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:21:02 Pathoschild You can't act on it; there's nothing to act on.
15:21:06 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:21:28 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:22:15 Pathoschild Alright, please explain your understanding. How are requests made and processed? What are the requirements users should make sure their request meets? Who decides these requests?
15:23:59 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:26:02 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:26:16 Pathoschild I don't think Sabine's text says anything about that, unless I'm missing it. I'm looking at []; do you have another version?
15:27:23 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:27:57 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:29:49 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:34:01 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:34:47 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:34:49 timichal_ (n=zatopek@wikimedia/timichal) has joined #spc-lang-com
15:35:46 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:35:47 Pathoschild GerardM-: Yes, that all makes sense. Sabine's proposal makes no mention of any of that, though.
15:36:21 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:36:55 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:37:22 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:37:49 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:37:49 Pathoschild We may have been doing that, but it's not written in Sabine's proposed policy. I'd suggest incorporating the above into Meta:Language proposal policy or writing a new policy; but Sabine's proposal is not a policy.
15:38:02 Pathoschild m:Meta:Language proposal policy*
15:39:53 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:41:45 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:42:24 Pathoschild That's true, but I don't think that's relevant to the question of whether we should use Sabine's proposal, write a new policy, or change the current policy. The only user who edited Sabine's proposal is Sabine, and that proposal does not mention any of what you said above.
15:44:24 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:46:20 Pathoschild Alright. I oppose Sabine's proposal, you oppose mine; we've already covered both our objections. Would it be easier to change m:Meta:Language proposal policy to reflect what we want, or to change [] to reflect what developed after June?
15:46:44 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:47:17 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:49:10 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:49:29 Pathoschild Alright. Do you have an idea when the subcommittee can start processing requests? There are twenty-one requests open, and we still don't have a subcommittee-approved policy.
15:49:41 Pathoschild A few. Wait a moment.
15:50:02 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:50:18 timichal has left (Read error: 110 (Connection timed out))
15:50:29 Pathoschild m:Requests for new languages/Wikipedia Set English seems like an obvious rejection.
15:51:21 Pathoschild Shall I redirect any objections of being arbitrary to you until we have a policy?
15:53:03 Pathoschild We may as well use the current policy until we have a subcommittee-approved policy. It's been accepted by the community and implemented for a while now.
15:53:29 timichal_ accepted by the community?
15:54:20 timichal_ otoh, bad policy > no policy (and it's not that bad =)
15:54:33 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:54:42 Pathoschild Good policy > no policy, if it's not too bad. :)
15:55:43 GerardM- <this user has not agreed to public archival.>
15:55:54 Pathoschild GerardM-: ok.