[Foundation-l] On Arabic and sub-language proposals.

Tue Oct 7 13:02:10 UTC 2008

Hoi,
A member of the langcomm is afraid that publication of the contruibutions
may lead to the dismissal from the job. Given that this is expert help, it
is sufficient reason to comply.
Thanks,
     Gerard

NB There are good reasons for doing things in a procedural way. The best
reason is that it gives predictability and it ensures that everyone is
treated equally. If you want to call this "bureacratic", that is fine.The
benefit is still there.

NB2 There is also nobody proposing this project.

On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:36 PM, Milos Rancic <millosh at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Tue, Oct 7, 2008 at 2:32 PM, Gerard Meijssen
> <gerard.meijssen at gmail.com> wrote:
> > As indicated earlier, the "Lebanese" request proves that the ISO-639-3
> > standard is not followed blindly when giving the eligible status to a
> > project.
>
> As far as I could see from previous posts, your decision is still
> inside of bureaucratic behavior. They don't have the properly named
> ISO code.
>
> > The language committee is restricted in what it can share publicly.
> > Consequently not everything can be scrutinised by people who want to know
> > and see everything. As I indicated earlier, the request for Egyptian
> Arabic
> > was given extra attention.
>
> I am interested what kinds of informations have to be confidential
> when we are talking about the LangCom? Just list them and explain why.
>
> _______________________________________________
> foundation-l mailing list
> foundation-l at lists.wikimedia.org
> Unsubscribe: https://lists.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/foundation-l
>