[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[bpfk-announce] Re: BPFK



On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Matt Arnold wrote:

> On 12/21/06, Jorge Llambías <jjllambias@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On 12/21/06, Matt Arnold <matt.mattarn@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> > Just to clarify: There I was talking only about the currently shepherdless
> > sections (those marked in red). In the sections with shepherd but
> > not yet checkpointed I expect there will be some other points for
> > discussion. But still, the number of cmavo that might be controversial
> > is very small compared to the uncontroversial ones.
> 
> Adam Lopresto (Eimi) and I were discussing this on the channel. He
> used the word "outsourcing", which I like. Allow certain
> time-intensive, low-expertise functions be distributed to the
> community, which many in the BPFK do not wish to do. 

That's the strategy, and I agree.

> We believe we should just temporarily open up the wiki pages of all
> noncontroversial, previously-unshepherded sections to all comers.

I'm not sure I agree with the tactics.

Actually, what I had in mind was more like your vocabulary game.  I'd really
like to see a good compendium of good lojban usage, ideally encompassing
usage of all the cmavo (and all the uses of all of them, for those that have
more than one, like {bo} and {jai}), as well as all the places for all the
gismu.

That's a grand vision.  In the meantime, I was thinking more of asking people
to contribute usage examples.  I'm not at all sure about putting them on the
unshepherded BPFK sections.  Specifically, I fear it would look too official.
 
> Another suggestion by Eimi sounded very good. Let a shepherd write a
> mini-proposal to express the basic idea without having to spell it out
> in complete detail, if they feel they are not going to get around to
> the complete proposal. At least then we would have more than nothing.

I'd also like to clarify this.  My idea was that mini-proposals wouldn't be a
replacement for a proposal, but a first step.  Essentially a way to summarize
the shepherd's views of what the different sources say, what conflicts there
are, and how to resolve them.  So they'd probably look a lot like the final
Notes and Impact sections of a real proposal, but without the accompanying
definitions (or maybe just one or two as examples).  They could be voted on
and discussed to turn up any issues before all the work has been done to
rigorously define the whole section.  If there are problems they should turn
up at this point.  If there are no problems, the section could probably be
opened up to the byfy at large to fill in the details.  The shepherd still
has the final responsibility, but can be at least reasonably sure that there
won't be hugely differing opinions emerging at late stages to stall things.
-- 
Adam Lopresto
http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/

If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate.