From nobody@chain.digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 21 11:01:00 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bpfk-announce); Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:01:01 -0800 (PST) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GxT9p-0002u5-9F for bpfk-announce-real@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:00:49 -0800 Received: from express.cec.wustl.edu ([128.252.21.16]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GxT9T-0002tk-GY for bpfk-announce@lojban.org; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 11:00:44 -0800 Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (hive.cec.wustl.edu [128.252.21.14]) by express.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.6/8.12.5) with ESMTP id kBLJ0Gol011942 (version=TLSv1/SSLv3 cipher=DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA bits=256 verify=NO); Thu, 21 Dec 2006 13:00:16 -0600 (CST) Received: from hive.cec.wustl.edu (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1) with ESMTP id kBLIx1QM018439; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:59:01 -0600 Received: from localhost (adam@localhost) by hive.cec.wustl.edu (8.13.1/8.13.1/Submit) with ESMTP id kBLIx17x018436; Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:59:01 -0600 X-Authentication-Warning: hive.cec.wustl.edu: adam owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2006 12:59:01 -0600 (CST) From: "Adam D. Lopresto" To: bpfk-announce@lojban.org Subject: [bpfk-announce] Re: BPFK In-Reply-To: Message-ID: References: <458771EE.9020108@lojban.org> <925d17560612210843r5ab7aa06x884e3c82a43fc6ae@mail.gmail.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: MULTIPART/MIXED; BOUNDARY="-58716651-2129526432-1166727541=:16890" X-Spam-Score: -2.6 X-Spam-Score-Int: -25 X-Spam-Bar: -- This message is in MIME format. The first part should be readable text, while the remaining parts are likely unreadable without MIME-aware tools. X-archive-position: 132 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: bpfk-announce-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: adam@pubcrawler.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: bpfk-announce@lojban.org X-list: bpfk-announce ---58716651-2129526432-1166727541=:16890 Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable X-MIME-Autoconverted: from 8bit to quoted-printable by express.cec.wustl.edu id kBLJ0Gol011942 On Thu, 21 Dec 2006, Matt Arnold wrote: > On 12/21/06, Jorge Llamb=C3=ADas wrote: > > On 12/21/06, Matt Arnold wrote: > > > > Just to clarify: There I was talking only about the currently shepher= dless > > 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 controversia= l > > is very small compared to the uncontroversial ones. >=20 > 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.=20 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 rea= lly 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 h= ave more than one, like {bo} and {jai}), as well as all the places for all th= e gismu. That's a grand vision. In the meantime, I was thinking more of asking pe= ople 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 offic= ial. =20 > 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 summa= rize the shepherd's views of what the different sources say, what conflicts th= ere are, and how to resolve them. So they'd probably look a lot like the fin= al Notes and Impact sections of a real proposal, but without the accompanyin= g 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 t= urn up at this point. If there are no problems, the section could probably b= e opened up to the byfy at large to fill in the details. The shepherd stil= l has the final responsibility, but can be at least reasonably sure that th= ere won't be hugely differing opinions emerging at late stages to stall thing= s. --=20 Adam Lopresto http://cec.wustl.edu/~adam/ If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the precipitate. ---58716651-2129526432-1166727541=:16890--