From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Nov 27 21:23:40 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: lojbab@lojban.org X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_2_3_0); 28 Nov 2002 05:23:39 -0000 Received: (qmail 29439 invoked from network); 28 Nov 2002 05:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.218) by m3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 28 Nov 2002 05:23:39 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO lakemtao02.cox.net) (68.1.17.243) by mta3.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 28 Nov 2002 05:23:39 -0000 Received: from lojban.lojban.org ([68.100.206.153]) by lakemtao02.cox.net (InterMail vM.5.01.04.05 201-253-122-122-105-20011231) with ESMTP id <20021128052339.EEVU2203.lakemtao02.cox.net@lojban.lojban.org> for ; Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:23:39 -0500 Message-Id: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127233445.03073ec0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: rlechevalier@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Thu, 28 Nov 2002 00:16:52 -0500 To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: RE: Official Statement- LLG Board approves new baseline policy In-Reply-To: References: <5.1.0.14.0.20021127163350.036c0b80@pop.east.cox.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed From: Robert LeChevalier X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=1120595 X-Yahoo-Profile: lojbab At 03:26 AM 11/28/02 +0000, And wrote: >Lojbab: > > At 02:56 PM 11/27/02 +0000, And Rosta wrote: > > >[I've removed crossposting; restore it in the reply if you see fit] > > > > > >A couple of questions > > > > > >First, does a vote in favour count as a vote in favour of the general > thrust > > >of the document, or as support (or lack of dissent) for every detail > of it? > > > > The reason for the vote is that we are seeking a mandate for the baseline > > policy as described in the statement, and for the byfy as described, as a > > means of finalizing the baseline. How much you want to insist on "details" > > vs "approving of the general thrust" is up to you. A high proportion of > > yes votes will be taken as such a mandate. There is not likely to be > > further discussions on the details unless the community votes disapproval > >But will you take it as a mandate for the general thrust or also for >every detail? Yes. %^) >If I support the general thrust but dissent from some >details (or from likely interpretations of some details), I want to know >whether I have to express the few points of dissent now Feel free. >or whether it >will be allowed that details of the policy will remain open to debate >after its general thrust has received a mandate. The policy is not up for a debate - only ratification or rejection. A debate could affect peoples' decisions on ratification or rejection, but we put a time limit on the vote to prevent such a debate from dragging out. This was the consensus result of the Board discussion, and received the voted approval of Myself, Nora, Cowan, Nick, Xod, and Shawn Lasseter (and implicitly that of pc, though he resigned before the formal vote). Debate is healthy in building consensus, and we certainly want consensus. If your objections are serious enough that other members of the community also consider them a problem, then there will be no mandate, and the Board (and/or the voting membership) will have the option to reconsider now or when the byfy work is done depending on the sort of objections. But the policy is not open to amendment at this point. >At this stage I think >it would be healthier for us to have a general consensus on the overall thrust >rather than a heated debate over its details. Probably. But it depends on what objections exist on the details. If we paper over severe differences omn details, the general consensus will not hold, and frankly I don't want to be considered to have railroaded something through that people object to. I want the community to decide what it thinks in whatever way it chooses to decide, but to speak up in individual votes. I'll try to answer questions as to "why" we said certain things, if there are such questions, but I am going to seriously avoid "debating" as opposed to merely explaining why. Nick wants a community mandate because he will be relying on serious community effort and support in order to get the byfy job done in months rather than in years. I want a community mandate because the baseline won't hold long term amidst the factionalization that has occurred, unless people are willing to commit to the baseline. Thus I am interested in people's long term commitment to the baseline policy, and Nick (wearing his byfy hat at least) primarily in the short term commitment to how the baseline will be achieved. The consensus that produced the statement took a lot of debate and balancing of different interests among the various points of view. Considering how far apart some of us started on the Board debate, it is remarkable how it coalesced into something that everyone on the Board could agree to. But I wouldn't want to repeat that process with the whole community. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, President, The Logical Language Group, Inc. 2904 Beau Lane, Fairfax VA 22031-1303 USA 703-385-0273 Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org