Hello. If I am allowed, I'd like to signal that
the community advices
LangCom to lock the project unanimously in the PCP page, not for inactivity
(which indeed is not a valid reason) but for absence of content since the
wiki creation, which it is a valid reason per policy to do so. Regards, M.
2018-04-11 8:22 GMT+02:00 Oliver Stegen <oliver_stegen(a)sil.org>rg>:
I'm happy with the action that Steven took,
including the recent
re-opening of the discussion (for clarity's sake). LangCom appointed him
clerk for the kind of activity which he brings to the table (and for which
LangCom members' activity like mine are too sporadic to make LangCom
effective - see multiple complaints over the years).
Closing projects policy was revised after our May 2011 meeting exactly so
that "closing a project is no longer easier than opening one". In the
case of Malagasy Wikibooks, I vote for rejecting the proposal to close
precisely because inactivity alone is not a sufficient reason for closure.
There's no harm in keeping it open, and it would be more work to close it
(if I understand matters correctly).
In the hope that this can be re-resolved quickly (and without yet more
bureaucracy),
Oliver
On 10-Apr-18 23:14, Steven White wrote:
Look, I'm not trying to make trouble, nor to ramrod my opinions. With
thanks to members who supported my approach, I am going to revert the
closure of the discussion.
Before I do that, I will just point out that I think I have followed the
rules up to this point. Gerard's willingness to agree to the closure
happened in March, while we were still in a discussion phase. He did not
comment afterwards, so I wouldn't have characterized what he did as
negating my proposal. I do think it is within my purview as clerk to put a
proposal on the table. If I stretched a point of the rules at all, it was
to hypothesize that a "discussion" during which only one member comments is
not sufficient to establish a committee consensus to close an existing
project, particularly when its only real problem is inactivity. But maybe
that's not correct; that needs to be discussed.
I would also point out to Marco that per policy, the community's role in
such matters is advisory, not binding. Whether or not it should apply to
this particular case, the Board and LangCom have expressed a general point
of view that they would rather keep projects open than to close them,
provided that the project is not full of vandalism. So while the community
does seem to support the closure, LangCom need not follow the community's
advice, although it certainly may do so.
Closing projects policy
<https://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Closing_projects_policy> normally does
not involve an actual vote; it is supposed to close on consensus. Again, my
perspective is that a consensus discussion to close a project that is not
vandalized requires more than one voice. If members disagree, then please
say so. (And I'd point out that frequently we allow a single voice to mark
a project request as "eligible" or "rejected"; I just think existing
projects deserve a little stronger benefit of the doubt.) So let's let this
run for at least another week, to April 17, and see what else people have
to say about it.
Steven
Sent from Outlook <http://aka.ms/weboutlook>
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
Virus-free.
www.avg.com
<http://www.avg.com/email-signature?utm_medium=email&utm_source=link&utm_campaign=sig-email&utm_content=emailclient>
<#m_4284120631935571393_m_4414387168066765486_DAB4FAD8-2DD7-40BB-A1B8-4E2AA1F9FDF2>
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing
listLangcom@lists.wikimedia.orghttps://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org
https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/langcom
_______________________________________________
Langcom mailing list
Langcom(a)lists.wikimedia.org