Talk:Closing projects policy/Archives/2012

Board (in-)action on committee jurisdiction

Board members have apparently declined to pass a resolution adopting this policy.[1] The board does not really need to, just as it does not need to ratify every amendment to the committee's policies for new projects. However, to make this "official" in any sense, the board should consider adopting a resolution to add project closure to the committee's charter. The committee is charged by the board with authority over policies for creating new projects but not, at this time, authority over policies for closing existing projects. ~ Ningauble 14:56, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

During the August, likely during Wikimania, Board would pass new Language proposal policy. At that time, Board could pass the general resolution about responsibilities of LangCom. As there is a month and half until that decision and as community should talk one month per policy, the first recommendations to the Board would come after passing resolution or whatever Board think it is appropriate. --Millosh 16:28, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree that "managing the closing of language-projects" should be added to the LangCom scope, given this update to the policy here. Millosh, if the committee makes that change to the charter, the Board can vote to approve that updated scope. This doesn't require an in-person meeting. –SJ talk | translate   19:07, 21 July 2011 (UTC)

Citation needed: If Proposals for closing projects/header is currently correct in stating (dif 2 July 2011) "The new Closing projects policy has been adopted by the Language committee and approved by the Board" [emphasis added], then this policy page ought to cite the applicable board resolution or other official action. Otherwise, the language at Proposals for closing projects/header should be revised ~ Ningauble 20:59, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Update:  Somewhat more than a year later, the board has approved an updated Language Committee Charter by official resolution. The new charter does not include "managing the closing of language-projects" as suggested above.

I am not trying to make a big deal over dotting al the "i"s and crossing all the "t"s, this is just a general observation. In following these developments, seeing now authorities are given and taken offhandedly, and how board actions are apparently taken[2] without being recorded in the minutes, I think I am gaining some insight into how tens of millions of dollars raised by the Foundation seem to vanish into a black hole: nobody is minding the store. ~ Ningauble (talk) 23:06, 31 October 2012 (UTC)