French Language & Usage description was edited, why?

Question

Proposal: French Language & Usage

It seems Robert edited the description of the French Language & Usage proposal a couple of days ago. Whilst I like the merging of the 3 French proposals, was this necessary? I think the old description was better. This proposal made it to commit stage with a description which explicitly allowed translations from any language to French, and for questions to be asked in English and French. I don't see why it's appropriate to remove that once it's been agreed upon. Could it be put back?

Also, it was somewhat based on the German site's description, which hasn't been changed.

Answer 1

The proposal description is designed to answer

Who is this site for?

The actual scope of the site (on and off topic) belongs in the example questions.

In a lot of cases, it has become actively harmful to the proposal's development to include too much scope information in the "who is this site for" description. We've been backing away from too much detail in the early description. The scope becomes too "hard coded" by the proposal author when that activity is supposed to fall to the contributing community and the early beta.

We launched a few of these "Language" proposals very successfully. The French proposal should be able to build upon the success and failures of those efforts. I wouldn't fret too much about translations and multi-language issue. These turned out to be non-issues and have been largely hashed out successfully by the other communities.

Answer 2

Well I have two opinions on this.

1. This is really important to have the widest audience as possible, so asking in French and in English should be authorised.
2. The description sounded wrong in the emails (use of templates), so I think that's better like this.

By the way, it bring me to a suggestion: should we not be preparing the FAQ for the site? I don't know area51 very well. Are FAQ built by the community manager? while running the closed beta? or before the beta stage?