Received: from localhost ([::1]:56799 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiSlM-00025r-VT; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:46:33 -0700 Received: from mail-ig0-f175.google.com ([209.85.213.175]:36498) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.85) (envelope-from ) id 1ZiSl2-00025C-25 for llg-board@lojban.org; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:46:22 -0700 Received: by igcrk20 with SMTP id rk20so38038120igc.1 for ; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:46:06 -0700 (PDT) DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=gmail.com; s=20120113; h=mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date:message-id:subject:from:to :content-type; bh=dQ8V05b4a3k1wardglQGm+zE1fBh2CyDjfgQDL9+ZJQ=; b=aSSExzaVf+KhItdjUUGSV0vFaRC8yNDc55vtb3I5YOmJviHSfR58OpHoOoWUpM3b6x zHgWX64B3LdvP42rFAbN8Dnu3s60vR17Tfd9YeLjbeEfnGS1/+c1wZCCZsfJ1bcyxxCT s7IOYtHRzZ1cC6UnCkIFyGIrKAe7AsPMNy5yZB1XYA0cArCIRiHCkMy7M8rsjvKfS957 dxDV5qvpn0RCOfkJ+aT0Pzdw6iTAmOPm4ZfwgAOcIqfmTFaxI52WLVOIAXxrv3MUKLZF 9fb07QsDBuX/X+TeetfQR24WH5w5tncMkLFXbcEBC1T/A3dr+4NxvchzaYEfAvGL8cHX 2tHw== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.50.111.83 with SMTP id ig19mr3021672igb.82.1443901565856; Sat, 03 Oct 2015 12:46:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.85.200 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:46:05 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.50.85.200 with HTTP; Sat, 3 Oct 2015 12:46:05 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: <560FF702.6020608@lojban.org> References: <55F8422C.7060108@lojban.org> <53A6AFBB-E438-47FE-91C8-A47E011279C5@gmail.com> <560FF702.6020608@lojban.org> Date: Sat, 3 Oct 2015 20:46:05 +0100 Message-ID: From: And Rosta To: llg-board@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.2 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.2 X-Spam_score_int: -21 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [llg-board] Time for another annual meeting? X-BeenThere: llg-board@lojban.org X-Mailman-Version: 2.1.20 Precedence: list List-Id: List-Unsubscribe: , List-Archive: List-Post: List-Help: List-Subscribe: , Reply-To: llg-board@lojban.org Content-Type: multipart/mixed; boundary="===============0332988490474305052==" Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org --===============0332988490474305052== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=089e013d0bf2ec746605213887b0 --089e013d0bf2ec746605213887b0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 On 3 Oct 2015 16:40, "Bob LeChevalier" wrote: > > On 10/3/2015 8:33 AM, And Rosta wrote: >> >> As part of doing that I had also wanted to have a wider debate about >> what the president and vice-president's main responsibilities are. I'd >> say they are at minimum ensuring (in a buck-stops-with-them sort of way) >> that Lojban.org is in good health and that CLL is in print and available >> for a sensible price, and, beyond the minimum, proactively coordinating >> anything that people want them to proactively coordinate. > > > We may need to have such a discussion during the meeting, possibly before the directors are elected, because we tend not to want to elect a non-director as an officer. Right. > > >> Does anybody have a view on whether I should bother doing that now, or >> whether we should just call the meeting? > > > We need to call the meeting whether or not you perform such a search, but I don't think that should interfere with your discussing it on the main list. And when we have the above-mentioned discussion during the meeting, you are welcome to take the lead. I'll wait till the meeting, then, to avoid redundancy of effort and the dispiriting effects of not getting a response. >> At the start of the meeting I would also move to remove membership from >> every member who neither is in attendance nor has been conspicuously >> active in the Lojban community in the past year. > > > We generally have done this on a year-delay basis - those who did not attend *last year* are eligible to be removed this year if they aren't present. Relative few people don't respond as present to two straight years of meetings. But our problem has been that a lot of people indicate presence at the meeting and then never actually participate, even though I always leave at least a day or two for comments or objections at every single step (indeed the greater complaint may be that this drags out the meeting too long). Do they fail to vote too? FWIW, my life is horribly busy for much of the year, and I find the manner and pace of the LLG meetings helpfully compatible with the attention I can spare. I would, at the meeting itself, propose voting out of membership anyone absent, but equally voting into membership any nonmember present. >> On a different but related point, I think there should be an honorary >> lifetime role for Lojbab for when he eventually steps down from the >> board. Something comparable to the Archgrammarian title given to John >> Cowan. Ditto for Robin. > > > I already have two such titles "Archivist" (a job which I have no idea how to pass on if we wanted to) and along with Nora, Tommy Whitlock and Gary Burgess, "Founder". I also effectively have the VA representative job locked down though Riley has proposed that we look at paying someone for this service (which might require a bylaw change). I was thinking of something more than Founder. Something more like 'midwife', but grander-sounding, like 'obstetrician' or 'maieutician', but less prone to confusion of meaning, so I'd tentatively suggest either 'maieumatician' or an equivalent in Lojban (i.e. Jbo + midwife). --And. --089e013d0bf2ec746605213887b0 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable


On 3 Oct 2015 16:40, "Bob LeChevalier" <lojbab@lojban.org> wrote:
>
> On 10/3/2015 8:33 AM, And Rosta wrote:
>>
>> As part of doing that I had also wanted to have a wider debate abo= ut
>> what the president and vice-president's main responsibilities = are. I'd
>> say they are at minimum ensuring (in a buck-stops-with-them sort o= f way)
>> that Lojban.org is in good health and that CLL is in print and ava= ilable
>> for a sensible price, and, beyond the minimum,=C2=A0 proactively c= oordinating
>> anything that people want them to proactively coordinate.
>
>
> We may need to have such a discussion during the meeting, possibly bef= ore the directors are elected, because we tend not to want to elect a non-d= irector as an officer.

Right.

>
>
>> Does anybody have a view on whether I should bother doing that now= , or
>> whether we should just call the meeting?
>
>
> We need to call the meeting whether or not you perform such a search, = but I don't think that should interfere with your discussing it on the = main list.=C2=A0 And when we have the above-mentioned discussion during the= meeting, you are welcome to take the lead.

I'll wait till the meeting, then, to avoid redundancy of= effort and the dispiriting effects of not getting a response.

>> At the start of the meeting I would also move to re= move membership from
>> every member who=C2=A0 neither is in attendance nor has been consp= icuously
>> active in the Lojban community in the past year.
>
>
> We generally have done this on a year-delay basis - those who did not = attend *last year* are eligible to be removed this year if they aren't = present.=C2=A0 Relative few people don't respond as present to two stra= ight years of meetings.=C2=A0 But our problem has been that a lot of people= indicate presence at the meeting and then never actually participate, even= though I always leave at least a day or two for comments or objections at = every single step (indeed the greater complaint may be that this drags out = the meeting too long).

Do they fail to vote too?

FWIW, my life is horribly busy for much of the year, and I f= ind the manner and pace of the LLG meetings helpfully compatible with the a= ttention I can spare.

I would, at the meeting itself, propose voting out of member= ship anyone absent, but equally voting into membership any nonmember presen= t.

>> On a different but related point, I think there sho= uld be an honorary
>> lifetime role for Lojbab for when he eventually steps down from th= e
>> board. Something comparable to the Archgrammarian title given to J= ohn
>> Cowan. Ditto for Robin.
>
>
> I already have two such titles "Archivist" (a job which I ha= ve no idea how to pass on if we wanted to)=C2=A0 and along with Nora, Tommy= Whitlock and Gary Burgess, "Founder".=C2=A0 I also effectively h= ave the VA representative job locked down though Riley has proposed that we= look at paying someone for this service (which might require a bylaw chang= e).

I was thinking of something more than Founder. Something mor= e like 'midwife', but grander-sounding, like 'obstetrician'= or 'maieutician', but less prone to confusion of meaning, so I'= ;d tentatively suggest either 'maieumatician' or an equivalent in L= ojban (i.e. Jbo + midwife).

--And.

--089e013d0bf2ec746605213887b0-- --===============0332988490474305052== Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline _______________________________________________ llg-board mailing list llg-board@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board --===============0332988490474305052==--