From nobody@digitalkingdom.org Mon Sep 29 13:47:04 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list bpfk-announce); Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:47:04 -0700 (PDT) Received: from nobody by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KkPe4-00027r-Pj for bpfk-real@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:47:04 -0700 Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1KkPe4-00027k-NJ for bpfk@lojban.org; Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:47:04 -0700 Date: Mon, 29 Sep 2008 13:47:04 -0700 From: Robin Lee Powell To: bpfk@lojban.org Subject: [BPFK] Re: New taskmaster, next checkpoint (repost due to technical difficulties) Message-ID: <20080929204704.GM27820@digitalkingdom.org> References: <20080929180554.GH2447@nvg.org> <20080929181113.GE27820@digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20080929181113.GE27820@digitalkingdom.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.18 (2008-05-17) X-archive-position: 182 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: bpfk-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: bpfk-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: bpfk@lojban.org X-list: bpfk-announce On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 11:11:13AM -0700, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 08:05:54PM +0200, Arnt Richard Johansen > wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 29, 2008 at 02:03:50PM +1300, LakMeer Kravid wrote: > > > This week I'm changing the current checkpoint to CAI, and > > > putting Irrealis on hold. It's already Friday here, so the > > > vote call for this checkpoint will be next Saturday, 4 Oct > > > GMT. > > > > Just a quick rundown on the terminology: > > > > - A section is the smallest unit of BPFK work, done by a > > shepherd > > > > - A checkpoint is a collection of sections, which are deemed to > > belong together because of interconnectedness. A checkpoint is > > completed (approved) when all of its sections are approved. > > > > As I understand it, you want Ted to start working on > > Intensifiers right away. Is this correct? > > At this point, I actually think we shouldn't worry about shepherds > and just have everyone work on the section together. Shepherds > hasn't been working; time to try something else. To expand on that: as BPFKJ, I officially encourage people to edit others' sections. If a conflict results (read your wikichanges mail people!), we can deal with it as it comes. -Robin -- Lojban Reason #17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/