From bpfk-list+bncCMHEmaCOBhC74N3lBBoEqSKkLA@googlegroups.com Thu Oct 14 14:04:11 2010 Received: from mail-gx0-f189.google.com ([209.85.161.189]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.72) (envelope-from ) id 1P6Uy7-00080L-En; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:04:11 -0700 Received: by gxk6 with SMTP id 6sf108350gxk.16 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:04:01 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=domainkey-signature:received:x-beenthere:received:received:received :received:received-spf:received:mime-version:received:received :in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :x-original-sender:x-original-authentication-results:reply-to :precedence:mailing-list:list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive :sender:list-subscribe:list-unsubscribe:content-type; bh=0oPn89nLU4lwle9Ydp+MToyBopUvoTxT76twh7KzP78=; b=1PsOqDA5c/aVjBKx2pSBuBjqK58upynF4zwNy/WQz1xC+E2p+9IEdzRYM1QLw57zGB VekDndxhg31f5MsIP7HElgyrQ/RgpuaxIXd4TrtFPAeK24JDG60u84NYRPaCwHROdbaQ T4NZcoYKjEuFDLPOrheITsz0rSwPnA18TWOCc= DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; c=nofws; d=googlegroups.com; s=beta; h=x-beenthere:received-spf:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to:x-original-sender :x-original-authentication-results:reply-to:precedence:mailing-list :list-id:list-post:list-help:list-archive:sender:list-subscribe :list-unsubscribe:content-type; b=YANsyVstF/xsLfNsUG7c0RM0f22BDyqt5wPZJPtUaakJO5DIsm3fC+PkuhcK6yZ6vP /eIAxJomLhQh7MYRxm0GoBAiD/NzHYWHTnxFTApXhQAeOwT8myQ4ifxSsXZNYk5ryeqs SbwpfxWG+7SR54I3hZyS/SLcgFMAybGcIB7UM= Received: by 10.151.62.35 with SMTP id p35mr1019458ybk.64.1287090235066; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:55 -0700 (PDT) X-BeenThere: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Received: by 10.231.55.74 with SMTP id t10ls1880955ibg.3.p; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.35.77 with SMTP id o13mr2887074ibd.3.1287090234684; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.35.77 with SMTP id o13mr2887072ibd.3.1287090234549; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:54 -0700 (PDT) Received: from mail-iw0-f172.google.com (mail-iw0-f172.google.com [209.85.214.172]) by gmr-mx.google.com with ESMTP id j25si2741646ibb.4.2010.10.14.14.03.53; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:53 -0700 (PDT) Received-SPF: pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender) client-ip=209.85.214.172; Received: by iwn10 with SMTP id 10so27459iwn.3 for ; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:53 -0700 (PDT) MIME-Version: 1.0 Received: by 10.42.214.83 with SMTP id gz19mr5713450icb.277.1287090232409; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:52 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.231.206.68 with HTTP; Thu, 14 Oct 2010 14:03:52 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <20101014071951.GU24066@digitalkingdom.org> Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2010 15:03:52 -0600 Message-ID: Subject: Re: [bpfk] What I'm going to do. From: Jonathan Jones To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com X-Original-Sender: eyeonus@gmail.com X-Original-Authentication-Results: gmr-mx.google.com; spf=pass (google.com: domain of eyeonus@gmail.com designates 209.85.214.172 as permitted sender) smtp.mail=eyeonus@gmail.com; dkim=pass (test mode) header.i=@gmail.com Reply-To: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com Precedence: list Mailing-list: list bpfk-list@googlegroups.com; contact bpfk-list+owners@googlegroups.com List-ID: List-Post: , List-Help: , List-Archive: Sender: bpfk-list@googlegroups.com List-Subscribe: , List-Unsubscribe: , Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=20cf3042704818bd6d04929a0c8e --20cf3042704818bd6d04929a0c8e Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable 2010/10/14 Jorge Llamb=EDas > On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Robin Lee Powell > wrote: > > > > So, here's what's going to happen. > > Excellent. Let's do it! > > > If I may, I would like propose we also do the following: > > Every January 1st. the BPFK publishes a very concise "State of the > Language" report, that looks something like this: > > ------------------------------- > ************************* > The State of the Lojban Language as of January 1st, 2011 > > The Official documentation of Lojban as recognized by the BPFK is: > > - CLL-2011 (this is the current CLL with whatever paragraph changes > have been approved by January 1st 2011) (with link) > - gismu-list-2011 (probably no changes this year) (with link) > - cmavo-list-2011 (maybe two or three changes, maybe not) (with link) > - whatever else we consider strictly official (with link) > > BPFK recommendations: > > - The BPFK recommends that people use the definitions found in > "jbovlaste" for words not defined in the official documents (link to > jbovlaste). > - The BPFK recommends people pay attention to document xxxx (link) on > "denpa bu", as we expect that a change along those lines will be made > official at some point in the near future. > - The BPFK recommends people pay attention to document yyyy (link) on > (whatever), as we expect that a change along those lines will be made > official at some point in the future. > - The BPFK recommends people don't waste too much time on the official > specification of (whatever, MEX?), as we expect some relevant changes > may be made official in the near future. > - The BPFK recommends .... (whatever else we may want to recommend). > > > ******************************** > ----------------------------------------- > > That should be published in some prominent BPFK site, where each > year's new "State of the Language" report is added. > > BPFK recommendations are just what their name suggests, but they give > the community a sense of what the BPFK is doing (and also helps us > keep track of what we are failing to do). > > The CLL-2011 document will most likely contain some internal > inconsistenies, and there may be a few inconsistencies between it and > cmavo-2011, but it doesn't matter, we publish it all the same, > CLL-2012 and cmavo-2012 will fix some of them, and CLL-2013 and > cmavo-2013 will fix some others, and so on. Something imperfect is > better than nothing. > > In the meantime, we can keep working, but we are committed to present > a State of the Language Report every January 1st, no matter how little > has been resolved the previous year, and no matter that we know that > there are outstanding issues. > > The LLG may, in turn, if it so wishes, in its June or whenever > meeting, give its blessing to what the BPFK has presented on January > 1st, suggest to the BPFK that it look deeper into this or that > language issue, and so on. > > What do you think? > > mu'o mi'e xorxes > I think it's a great idea, but I recommend that if the BPFK does something major, like xorlo, that it not wait until the next "State of the Lojban Language" to report it, but issue an "emergency update" with a better name immediately. --=20 mu'o mi'e .aionys. .i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu d= o zo'o (Come to the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D ) --=20 You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group. To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den. --20cf3042704818bd6d04929a0c8e Content-Type: text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

2010/10/14 Jorge Llamb=EDas <jjllambias@gmail.com&= gt;
On Thu, Oct 14, 2010 at 4:19 AM, Robin Lee Powell
<rlpowell@digitalkingdom.= org> wrote:
>
> So, here's what's going to happen.

Excellent. Let's do it!


If I may, I would like propose we also do the following:

Every January 1st. the BPFK publishes a very concise "State of the
Language" report, that looks something like this:

-------------------------------
*************************
The State of the Lojban Language as of January 1st, 2011

The Official documentation of Lojban as recognized by the BPFK is:

- CLL-2011 (this is the current CLL with whatever paragraph changes
have been approved by January 1st 2011) =A0(with link)
- gismu-list-2011 (probably no changes this year) =A0(with link)
- cmavo-list-2011 (maybe two or three changes, maybe not) =A0(with link) - whatever else we consider strictly official =A0(with link)

BPFK recommendations:

- The BPFK recommends that people use the definitions found in
"jbovlaste" for words not defined in the official documents (link= to
jbovlaste).
- The BPFK recommends people pay attention to document xxxx (link) on
"denpa bu", as we expect that a change along those lines will be = made
official at some point in the near future.
- The BPFK recommends people pay attention to document yyyy (link) on
(whatever), as we expect that a change along those lines will be made
official at some point in the future.
- The BPFK recommends people don't waste too much time on the official<= br> specification of (whatever, MEX?), as we expect some relevant changes
may be made official in the near future.
- The BPFK recommends .... (whatever else we may want to recommend).


********************************
-----------------------------------------

That should be published in some prominent BPFK site, where each
year's new "State of the Language" report is added.

BPFK recommendations are just what their name suggests, but they give
the community a sense of what the BPFK is doing (and also helps us
keep track of what we are failing to do).

The CLL-2011 document will most likely contain some internal
inconsistenies, and there may be a few inconsistencies between it and
cmavo-2011, but it doesn't matter, we publish it all the same,
CLL-2012 and cmavo-2012 will fix some of them, and CLL-2013 and
cmavo-2013 will fix some others, and so on. Something imperfect is
better than nothing.

In the meantime, we can keep working, but we are committed to present
a State of the Language Report every January 1st, no matter how little
has been resolved the previous year, and no matter that we know that
there are outstanding issues.

The LLG may, in turn, if it so wishes, in its June or whenever
meeting, give its blessing to what the BPFK has presented on January
1st, suggest to the BPFK that it look deeper into this or that
language issue, and so on.

What do you think?

mu'o mi'e xorxes

I think it's a great= idea, but I recommend that if the BPFK does something major, like xorlo, t= hat it not wait until the next "State of the Lojban Language" to = report it, but issue an "emergency update" with a better name imm= ediately.

--
mu'o mi'e .aionys.

.i.a'o.e'e ko cmima le= bende pe lo pilno be denpa bu .i doi.luk. mi patfu do zo'o
(Come to= the Dot Side! Luke, I am your father. :D )

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "= BPFK" group.
To post to this group, send email to bpfk-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to bpfk-list+unsubscribe@googleg= roups.com.
For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/bpfk-l= ist?hl=3Den.
--20cf3042704818bd6d04929a0c8e--