From lojbab@lojban.org Sat Jul 03 22:22:53 2004 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bpfk-announce); Sat, 03 Jul 2004 23:06:15 -0700 (PDT) Received: from lakermmtao05.cox.net ([68.230.240.34]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.32) id 1BgzSm-0007QE-F0 for bpfk-announce@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Jul 2004 22:22:52 -0700 Received: from bob.lojban.org ([68.228.12.146]) by lakermmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.03.02 201-2131-111-104-20040324) with ESMTP id <20040704052220.WAAM5935.lakermmtao05.cox.net@bob.lojban.org> for ; Sun, 4 Jul 2004 01:22:20 -0400 Message-Id: <5.2.0.9.0.20040704010714.038eb1b0@pop.east.cox.net> X-Sender: lojbab@pop.east.cox.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.2.0.9 Date: Sun, 04 Jul 2004 01:16:21 -0400 To: bpfk-announce@lojban.org From: Bob LeChevalier Subject: [bpfk-announce] Re: gadri Update; Please Respond! Pretty please. In-Reply-To: <20040703230727.GA32105@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed X-archive-position: 65 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: bpfk-announce@lojban.org X-list: bpfk-announce At 04:07 PM 7/3/04 -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: >I propose that we add the following two sections to the gadri >checkpoint: > > * Grammatical Pro-sumti KOhA7 KOhA8 > * Subordinators NOI GEhU KUhO VUhO GOI ZIhE > >I'm willing to shepherd one or both, but I would of course love it if >someone else wants to do it. In particular, I'm not entirely certain of >the sufficiency of my understanding of ce'u. > >Having added these in, I further propose that we give it another month, >and if we haven't acheived something that looks like consensus, we move >on to something else. > >Please tell me what you think of this plan, because I could really use >some feedback right now. Approve greatly. Keep pushing along pieces of the whole, without insisting on anything that suggests we are making a final decision, especially when it is understood that something is changing, until we have everything done to the same level, and I won't complain (as much %^). We don't really need consensus on anything at this stage to move on, we need lots of chunks defined so that people can mull over them for a while. This is an approach that comes closer to what I am looking for than the status quo. Spend a couple weeks on each topic and move on to the next whether we have consensus or not. Consensus will eventually develop without being pushed, if it can develop. lojbab -- lojbab lojbab@lojban.org Bob LeChevalier, Founder, The Logical Language Group (Opinions are my own; I do not speak for the organization.) Artificial language Loglan/Lojban: http://www.lojban.org