[Foundation-l] The status of smaller languages on the Wikimedia Commons

Thu May 4 19:07:22 UTC 2006

 Why you are talking about a meta-subcommittee I wonder, I
> was thinking more in terms of the communication committee and its
> translation subcommittee. With the new structures that are put in place,
> there are new opportunities to find ways of getting your message out.

OK, I repeat: what subcommittee? Link, please? What is this
committee's relationship with the Commons supposed to be? Were we
informed that it existed and we should use it? Or should we be
scouring [[meta:]] everyday, or...? (Two-way street, & all that...)

Another part of
> making Commons more relevant is called InstantCommons and we are waiting
> for the special projects committee to finally inform us that we can
> start coding.

[[m:InstantCommons]] has nothing much to do with the WM foundation or
its projects, which is what I thought we were discussing?

But please do communicate big things, do use the Foundation or
> the Wikipedia list for things that are profound. It is the lack of
> communication that creates resentment it is not the fact that things are
> done.

Well that's fine! I would be very happy to write a fortnightly or
monthly summary of major activities and discussions taking place on
Commons. Is that what is desired? Maybe it will encourage more people
to take an interest. But nobody's ever told us we should do this! You
are resentful at us for not doing something we were never informed we
had a duty to do. What "big things", exactly, are we remiss in not
reporting?

I look forward to your definition of "profound" and "big things" so I
should know what level of detail to provide. If "profound" includes
***the appearance of a language navigation template*** you should
expect a nice long report!

(BTW - a post without the accusations of conspiracy and racism, on
commons-l or the Village pump, requesting such communications would
have been a much better bridge towards "better communication")
Brianna