Talk:Sister Projects Committee/Archive/Draft charter

Definitions

I think we should be more accurate with non-public wikis which are part of WMF. I suggest to only include public wikis in the definition.--Ymblanter (talk) 15:45, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. I removed explicit mention of private wikis, though they are not excluded by the current definition. That's not an area that needs active help, since there are few private wikis -- and it is potentially controversial. Better to leave that to a future refinement of the charter, if the need arises. –SJ talk  17:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Scope

In the Scope section, I think we should include a line to say that if a request for a new project in a language that doesn't have any existing project will require the coordination of both SPCom and LangCom. Amqui (talk) 17:27, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Do I understand you correctly that you mean, somebody would propose a new project in a language not yet on Special:Sitematrix? I think this is very very unlikely to happen. --MF-W 17:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

You're right, and I just saw there is already a mention that all linguistic questions will be referred to LangCom, so that's fine. Amqui (talk) 17:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

MF-W draft

MF-W has a detailed draft charter including more explicit duties and responsibilities which I think looks good and can be used to replace this draft. –SJ talk  11:47, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Merged in. –SJ talk  13:36, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Previous proposals

May be we still should consider the 2012 proposals, they are recent and there are only two or three of them (one I reviewed a couple of days ago, another one Sj reviewed a couple of days ago).--Ymblanter (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. –SJ talk  21:44, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

According to Proposals for new projects, these seem to be WikiExperts, Wikiessay and GlobalTemplates? We can surely do this (in the ideal case, the proposers of these projects are still interested in them up for discussion "again", of course). --MF-W 12:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Revising membership and voting

Both of these should be simple. Most decisions can happen via consensus of the active members of the committee that week; we should be willing to trust one another's decisions. The annual chair election should be the only election process. As long as we have a good process for updating the charter, we can leave out further complexity for now. –SJ talk  15:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see how this can in principle become a problem (more people from one project willingly or unwillingly introducing systemic bias), but I do not see any indication of this problem right now, so that I would be fine with the idea of no formal membership for the moment.--Ymblanter (talk) 18:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)