Propuestas:General/Changes to linguistic commission/Hubs/en
This proposal seeks to eliminate the component known as the Linguistic Commission and divides in two option. For this proposal "projects" are defined as wikis of the Wikimedia Foundation. For instance, Wikivoyage is a wiki, Wikipedia is a wiki, and so on.
These project hubs share the interests of each volunteer to belong tothis project. Said "mega-cells" are made up of each linguistic version of the project and choose the project hub's representative before the Languages/Linguistic Committee/Central Commission.
This is a good idea because:
- They have a defined theme, since project hubs are naturally focused in a particular project,
- They remove language bias,
- The Language/Linguistic Committee/Central Commission would be reduced to ten members, which would increase choice-making efficiency.
It has a question:
- Each language could or could not lack what other language might or might not too. This could be solved with a decision that after some time, the language's necessities inside a hub are taken after a period of time.
Contrary to project hubs, linguistic hubs only have the spoken language in commons. They are also "mega-cells" but are composed by each project to which an ambassador is appointed to. Each project's ambassador would speak on behalf of their "embassy's" interests. Sais centers would issue their opinions to be considered by the Administrative Commission.
- Favorable points:
- Removed the Linguistic Commission completely and issues its opinions directly towards the Administrative Commission.
It has certain
- Up to 280 linguistic hubs could exist, an incredible overload to the group's current capacity,
- Potential bias exist given that there would only be favorable opinions towards the dominant project. Eg: Wikipedia in Spanish over Wikivoyages; the former is a sucessful project, while the latter is one underdeveloped.
Comité/Comisión Central de Lenguas/Lingüística/Idiomas
Este Comité sería el sustituto de la Comisión Lingüística y tendría la tarea de deliberar cuál es el mejor curso de acción del grupo sobre los proyectos definidos en su alcance. A diferencia de su predecesora, ya no tiene la capacidad de asesorar sino de decidir -a menos que esto afecte competencias exclusivas de la Comisión Administrativa u otros componentes-.