From nobody@chain.digitalkingdom.org Wed Dec 20 04:03:26 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bpfk-announce); Wed, 20 Dec 2006 15:42:21 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gx09o-0006rb-W7 for bpfk-announce-real@lojban.org; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:02:54 -0800 Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1Gx08u-0006g8-13; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 04:02:32 -0800 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 9302794783; Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:01:30 +0100 (CET) Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2006 13:01:30 +0100 (CET) From: Arnt Richard Johansen X-X-Sender: arj@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no To: bpfk-announce@lojban.org cc: Robert LeChevalier , rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Subject: [bpfk-announce] Re: BPFK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <458771EE.9020108@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -25 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 127 X-Approved-By: rlpowell@chain.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: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: bpfk-announce@lojban.org X-list: bpfk-announce On Tue, 19 Dec 2006, Matt Arnold wrote: > This is in response to offlist comments by Lojbab. Bob, I'm sending > this to you and to bpfk-announce; the list was having problems but > tell me if you only receive this through your personal e-mail. > > 1. Utilizing Me For Busy Work > 2. Definition Of "Active" (In This Context For My Purposes) > 3. Do We Even Need Recruitment? > 4. My Understanding Of What It's For And How It Works > 5. Ways Forward > > 1. Utilizing Me For Busy Work > > I need clarification on the difference between writing a proposal for > a section and shepherding it. As I understand it, the shepherd: - does all the research for the section - writes the initial proposal - in case of objections to the proposal, revises it The latter is often an iterative process that goes on for several rounds, as BPFK commisioners are wont to find a few nits to pick. > 2. Definition Of "Active" (In This Context For My Purposes) > > I consider the ones I hear from _at all_ to be "active people in > Lojban." I am not sure if I understand you. Clearly, not everyone who is active in Lojban has the necessary expertise to do BPFK work. > 4. My Understanding Of What It's For And How It Works > > *deep breath* So far as I can tell, BPFK it is for creating a set of > approved documents. These will contain definitions of all cmavo in > reasonably thorough detail, and correct issues with some gismu where > the existing gismu definitions are insufficient in some way. The pages > will then be published as an alphabetically-ordered reference lookup, > electronically and as an attractive bound paper book with all the > cognitive ergonomics my graphic design skills can provide. (Yeah, I'm > learning LaTeX.) As I understand it, the BPFK will publish its works in at least two ways: - The mini-dictionary - Revisions (hopefully minor) to the CLL > 5. Ways Forward > > I propose that "checkpoints" be discarded for now. I would like to > focus on a smaller subset of the language at a time than BPFK has > previously done. I would like everyone to form teams of two or three > to work on a section. Choose someone with whom you have a fairly good > understanding or good ability to attain understanding. I don't think writing a BPFK section is a task well suited for teamwork, but I'd be very happy to be proven wrong. The BPFK is moving along at a dreadful crawl, and we need all the new ideas we can get. Which sense of understanding do you mean? WordNet has two that seem relevant: 1. understanding, apprehension, discernment, savvy -- (the cognitive condition of someone who understands; "he has virtually no understanding of social cause and effect") 3. sympathy, understanding -- (an inclination to support or be loyal to or to agree with an opinion; "his sympathies were always with the underdog"; "I knew I could count on his understanding") This is an important difference. For instance, I have a very good understanding (1) of Jorge's motives and intentions, and vice versa, but often we cannot come to an understanding (3). > - If there only exists one proposal, > - and its opponents consider it less attractive or useful than they would > like, > - but at the bare minimum it is pragmatically functional enough to be > speakable and non-contradictory, > - and more than 75% of BPFK members are in favor of it who vote before > the deadline, > > ... then I give the dissenting coalition an extension within which to > show a good-faith effort to make progress on writing an alternative > proposal. If for whatever reason they cannot, or if progress on > writing their alternative stagnates with no progress for weeks, then I > end their deadline extension and the only existing proposal passes. > > A higher burden will be placed on altering part of the language as it > already exists. The existing language feature, if it is acknowledged > to have the bare minimum pragmatic functionality to be speakable in > principle and non-contradictory, will be considered its own "proposal" > and the burden of proof would fall such that the status quo would stay > the same by default. > > What do you think? I agree that the status quo should take precedence, and that dissenting parties need to draft a counter-proposal, but otherwise I don't understand what you're getting at. The majority of the language is thoroughly uncontroversial. Nevertheless, a BPFK section must be written on it, for use in the dictionary. An existing language feature cannot be "considered its own proposal", because that would amount to the BPFK saying that it shouldn't be in the dictionary. Until now, there have been no situations where multiple proposals have competed. The vote has always been about what the current shepherd says. How do you propose to resolve the votes in this situation? -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Q: How many Prolog programmers does it take to replace a light bulb? A: no.