From nobody@chain.digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 21 10:46:21 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bpfk-announce); Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:46:22 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GxSvr-0002go-6S for bpfk-announce-real@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:46:19 -0800 Received: from an-out-0708.google.com ([209.85.132.241]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GxSvi-0002gc-95 for bpfk-announce@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:46:18 -0800 Received: by an-out-0708.google.com with SMTP id b8so755626ana for ; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:46:08 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=r3gN14VM0iF1RXm3O0xLcGG1O7cFaGgJ5sOFZETxjrV530uz9B2VPemagf9vx4FUdJyR7mJH+9rIJoUjngEPRdSqjh9d9SM2FUT+R3tepBhyyJsi5fbCLA0mFcqIOuEWde2dfdYBoCvhvEf17/gXm3GfCf3FNWjf8WIOSfrx+/c= Received: by 10.78.97.7 with SMTP id u7mr568617hub.1166726768188; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:46:08 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.78.144.4 with HTTP; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 10:46:08 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:46:08 -0500 From: "Matt Arnold" To: bpfk-announce@lojban.org Subject: [bpfk-announce] Re: BPFK In-Reply-To: <925d17560612210843r5ab7aa06x884e3c82a43fc6ae@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-MIME-Autoconverted: from quoted-printable to 8bit by Ecartis Content-Disposition: inline References: <458771EE.9020108@lojban.org> <925d17560612210843r5ab7aa06x884e3c82a43fc6ae@mail.gmail.com> X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -25 X-Spam-Bar: -- X-archive-position: 131 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: bpfk-announce@lojban.org X-list: bpfk-announce On 12/21/06, Jorge Llambías wrote: > On 12/21/06, Matt Arnold 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. We believe we should just temporarily open up the wiki pages of all noncontroversial, previously-unshepherded sections to all comers. The purpose would _not_ be to allow non-experts to make decisions for the BPFK. The purpose would be a labor-saving mechanism, to let eager Lojban users such as John Schock seek out and volunteer a bunch of usage examples on which the qualified individuals in the BPFK can render judgment when they get to that section. We would not open such a section for a vote until the BPFK has locked it down and cleaned it up with explanations. It might even be helpful for us to not delete certain common mistaken usages, if we can point them out as prototypical educational examples of how not to use a word. It would save the shepherd some of the time of going out and searching for usages. The shepherd would have to figure out from context what definition they were probably using, but if they found it "in the wild" during their researches, they would have had to do that anyway. 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. -Eppcott