Received: from localhost ([::1]:43852 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bIJ7P-0003gS-FD; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:43 -0700 Received: from mail-vk0-f43.google.com ([209.85.213.43]:33834) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLSv1.2:ECDHE-RSA-AES128-GCM-SHA256:128) (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bIJ7H-0003fC-Ib for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:40 -0700 Received: by mail-vk0-f43.google.com with SMTP id c2so75219254vkg.1 for ; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:34 -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; bh=BBOEKnlPBCBiZ5q9a1EeaesXy2qDSzLoEcQfT3OwGvs=; b=WjQt02kxykG1jUzhr7QDNZaXiKF2oRMgPezuEsxfA9w1QsXRgU2jpwVzi3gFI5Oozh //PdMubt59eyVmRF/F/PlX/wOoYJhN/XHKVOtLro/mAgOv1GKIkWlbx5xD2wRnfdpeK1 bes2fl4VadQ8O53osLZQAiKtg4lvBb7494w6yfyvPbDISswVB7jw7taibe8NlqscsM6z WdEooHBKEu7Bow6HriyYsI74fi8f1Ug1ddf/e5zhNwYsN1lfAV/kRrhKZmTx7R0ckr9A 5eWgTUsVqZSbF3vsb4g6odS0tAr/2ThsVemGnTTlUrxcYFc+czkmQFXpZr/tgdqU8wof 68bw== X-Google-DKIM-Signature: v=1; a=rsa-sha256; c=relaxed/relaxed; d=1e100.net; s=20130820; h=x-gm-message-state:mime-version:in-reply-to:references:date :message-id:subject:from:to; bh=BBOEKnlPBCBiZ5q9a1EeaesXy2qDSzLoEcQfT3OwGvs=; b=YKXcFn8WC0MViqJ40ptGZiexVktW3DQ82J/qwthoHaJj+bNUCjp26ao+VDNH+UFcMi z2VJsBL3wJw0caYvSCAtEIG1fCgoGjbDPi5OA0QsxEOUO4Woj8+2/jqUFHnbuRfbmCaO 33rk6sYmAQvYFF9ewHTsKfYKLEBSNkeYzC7ltMPSZn4NF3/s6Ns+/1EuE5QHLt8uPFNV 2PvZR0L2neSz8pTHrQYUKxZXWCqLdA8CCN+wJ4DON0C+ElJB2GMuM1s+QyQvYYpSLPhn Jj1YkZLeHUfq/vqBqZna+uW+PySRVIuBC4q/luntWDPupBp7TBb/rU+P7yIgP2Dy5fjn Cw6g== X-Gm-Message-State: ALyK8tLLF1BZ6KDWYgxQBuMaqi1Cwmmuch89QyXw5IVHHTzzIYzKMUf3L0OBZY3LmC0SqLUE2b9FLNRSLs8/Ww== MIME-Version: 1.0 X-Received: by 10.31.49.9 with SMTP id x9mr3622157vkx.83.1467220648630; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.55.141 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:28 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.159.55.141 with HTTP; Wed, 29 Jun 2016 10:17:28 -0700 (PDT) In-Reply-To: References: <33ef899e-478f-eee0-1e8e-38e71ccfbc26@lojban.org> <23A0B5F9-6EDC-4555-8959-B61B11D8580E@gmail.com> Date: Wed, 29 Jun 2016 13:17:28 -0400 Message-ID: From: Curtis Franks To: llg-board@lojban.org X-Spam-Score: -2.0 (--) X-Spam_score: -2.0 X-Spam_score_int: -19 X-Spam_bar: -- Subject: Re: [llg-board] Volunteers and qualifications for office 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="===============3243583455244109149==" Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org --===============3243583455244109149== Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary=001a1143ffd291a06005366deda4 --001a1143ffd291a06005366deda4 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable I guess that I should be further clear. On Jun 29, 2016 12:18, "Curtis Franks" wrote: > > I am happy to address such questions. > > Firstly, I am more opposed to my proposal than I originally was. That should just be noted. Mostly, it is due to the unnecessary nature of it (sorry for the wasted time) and terminology being confusing, given other usages. > For example, by "dissolution", I meant terminating the session, replacing all voting members, and beginning a new session with the new voting members - basically the result of a vote of a no confidence - not the abolition of the institution. But this is neither here nor there, at this point. > But to address your concern, you are right in only the sense that organizations such as the LLG consitute a 'faction'. It was intention that the LLG would unilaterally endow itself with legitimacy by the means of its very governing text. It is like the U.S. Constitution making itself the supreme law of the land. Sure, both already were, but having it down in ink is nice. But, since the LLG has less ability to enforce compliance than the U.S. government, it is actually a vulnerability to point out that this endowment is being made - before, it would be assumed, but now (if the motion were to be debated by us or the public) it may be challenged. I think that I ventured too far into political theory. > I did specify "groups", in the plural; yet I addressed only the LLG. I think that this is enough, for reasons which will become clear, but I should be more explicit. By "groups", I meant other Lojban-related institutions or organizations with formal rules of conduct, membership, and authority. Moreover, I intended them to be, in some form, derived from the LLG or its Board; primarily, I was considering those which were established by, were conditionally granted their pertinent authority from, and which operated at the behest and under the auspices and with the will of the LLG or its Board. This includes offices or organizations such as the ones which we will eventually use in order to handle Internet and computer affairs. I see them as being devolved, but ultimately gaining their authority from the LLG. This is the case even if the LLG legally restricts itself from authoritating within the purview of such entities unless it - possibly forcefully - dismisses, dissolves, retires, or abolishes them (or if they delegate such power by internal legislation, by recusement, by not being in active and valid session, or by other means). It is sort of like the situation with Scottish Parliament in the UK; presently, their authority is given to them by the UK Parliament in a number of matters, but the supreme authority remains the UK Parliament, even in those matters and even against the will of the Scottish Parliament, population, or body politic. A slightly worse analogy would be that of the legal British Crown (political entity) being the source of authority of the UK Parliament. Anyway, the point is: the LLG and its derivative and inferior institutions are legitimate and authoritative in this view and those were the groups that I meant. > I want to reassure you that I will carry out the will of the consensus, (super)majority, or plurality, as the case requires. I will be mindful to separate official capacity and duty from personal intentions and desires. > > On Jun 29, 2016 09:18, "Riley Martinez-Lynch" wrote= : >> >> I appreciate Curtis volunteering to take on these responsibilities and the way that he has responded directly to the criteria that I suggested. His initiative in confronting those concerns helps to check my reservations= . >> >> There=E2=80=99s no discourse management attitudinal for directness, is t= here? I=E2=80=99m think something that would work out to =E2=80=9Clet me be frank= vs beating around the bush=E2=80=9D. >> >> In any case, ta=E2=80=99o nai, let me be frank. There=E2=80=99s one exch= ange during the meeting which has stuck with me, and which I need to understand better before I can take a position on Curtis=E2=80=99 candidacy. >> >> Curtis, I=E2=80=99m hoping you will help me to understand what you meant= when, following your proposal to amend the BPFK charter, you wrote: >> >>> "this would, purposefully, give certain groups advantage over others depending on the circumstances. That was the primary intention (although that cannot be said because doing so undermines the purpose - but here we are now! :P ).=E2=80=9D >> >> >> It=E2=80=99s possible that I misapprehended what you meant, but I constr= ued this to say that your intention in proposing the amendment was to redistribute influence among factions that you had in mind but were not explicitly naming, and that you had tactically concealed this intention. >> >> If I misunderstood, I=E2=80=99d like to give you an opportunity to expla= in how I should have interpreted what you wrote. To the extent that I didn=E2=80=99t misunderstand, I=E2=80=99d like to ask you to fully disclose your thoughts = about which groups you had in mind, and which circumstances. >> >> I want to be clear: It=E2=80=99s important that a candidate for presiden= t or vice president have strong opinions about how we operate organizationally. It=E2=80=99s not necessary for me to agree with a candidate on all the part= iculars, or even many of the generals, for them to gain my support. But I do want to know exactly where they stand. Above all, I need to be sure that they are committed to enacting the will of the community that they represent, even at the expense of their personal vision. >> >> This is important because the underlying value, the primacy of the community of speakers, is, as I understand it, why lojban is our loglan. >> >> =E2=80=94Riley no=E2=80=99u la mukti >> >>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Curtis Franks wrote: >>> >>> I hesitate to assume for myself, in the absence of any competition or even commentary, the office of President because I do not want to seem like I am reaching or trying to amass power and, equally importantly, I recognize that I lack the familiarity and experience that may be desired for the executor of the role; moreover, I have not demonstrated in the final months of the last meeting, any skill or experience in consensus-building or successful legislation-drafting - in fact, I realize that I was a startling failure in these domains. I understand that this performance was uninspiring, contentious, and unhelpful. I will try to improve no matter what my role. All that I can say for my prior conduct was that I was trying to be constructive and active - to do something and to avoid pitfalls in the process. I do think that I can do a good job in any office that I hold if I am given guidance, assistance, patience, and perhaps some direction. I will conduct myself more appropriately as I observe and judge, and as I am advised, in such a role. But I also understand that I have far from earned the trust of my peers. I do not want to bring doubt or grievance to management of this organization. I do not want people to lose faith in it. It may be the case that my recognizing these things - my failings and weaknesses - and my pledge to consciously improve with respect to them may secure for myself some small fraction of faith from others. >>> >>> Still, I believe that, unless another course is necessary, a gradual transition would be best. That way, I can test the waters and others can test me. I am more keen on the Vice-Presidential role as a result. But I also understand Lojbab's reluctance in continuing his present office and that some large degree of power-sharing is likely; I imagine that (should he retain his present role) he will begin and then bring me up to speed in efforts, history, style, and advice for conduct. Then, he will guide me and step in occasionally, as he deems desirable or necessary, gradually phasing out almost entirely as the meeting proceeds; I will increase in presence in inverse proportion. Of course, he may choose to do otherwise - he does not need my welcome here, and especially not my permission, but he has both in abundance. >>> >>> In short, I happily, although somewhat reservedly and self-consciously, nominate myself for the office of Vice-President. I hope to be admirably vigorous in my intention, but also wise in its conduct. If absolutely desired by the community or necessary by development of events, I will take the office of President with more reservation. >>> >>> I do still welcome others to nominate alternatives who may be more qualified and demonstratedly trustworthy. I will do my very best, but I understand my perception and position. I offer myself, essentially, as a willing last-resort. >>> >>> On Jun 25, 2016 19:53, "Curtis Franks" wrote: >>>> >>>> I agree about the timing and will hold off for a few days so that others may comment or join the process. >>>> >>>> On Jun 25, 2016 19:45, "Bob LeChevalier, President and Founder - LLG" = < lojbab@lojban.org> wrote: >>>>> >>>>> So Riley has volunteered as both Secretary and Treasurer, and no one else has. >>>>> >>>>> Curtis has said he would be interested in either President or Vice President. >>>>> >>>>> I'm willing to be President for another year, but I'm not enthusiastic because I don't think I did a very good job this past year, and am not sure I can do better in the coming year. I guess the same would be true for Vice President. I can also imagine Curtis as VP to me as President, and my largely delegating the job to him, at least insofar as *active* leadership. But if he feels up to the Presidency as it is, maybe he would be the better choice for President. (My inactivity doesn't suggest any obvious role for me as VP other than as a name to fill the slot.) >>>>> >>>>> If no one else speaks up for any office (maybe allow another day or two at most), I suggest that someone move a particular slate, rather than holding an election where there aren't multiple candidates. Curtis is probably the best one to make such a motion since he knows best which of the two top jobs he is more willing/interested in to serve, but anyone can make the motion. >>>>> >>>>> lojbab >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> _______________________________________________ >>>>> llg-board mailing list >>>>> llg-board@lojban.org >>>>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board >>> >>> _______________________________________________ >>> llg-board mailing list >>> llg-board@lojban.org >>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> llg-board mailing list >> llg-board@lojban.org >> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board >> --001a1143ffd291a06005366deda4 Content-Type: text/html; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable

I guess that I should be further clear.

On Jun 29, 2016 12:18, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wro= te:
>
> I am happy to address such questions.
>
> Firstly, I am more opposed to my proposal than I originally was. That = should just be noted. Mostly, it is due to the unnecessary nature of it (so= rry for the wasted time) and terminology being confusing, given other usage= s.
>

For example, by "dissolution", I meant terminating= the session, replacing all voting members, and beginning a new session wit= h the new voting members - basically the result of a vote of a no confidenc= e - not the abolition of the institution. But this is neither here nor ther= e, at this point.

> But to address your concern, you are right in only the = sense that organizations such as the LLG consitute a 'faction'. It = was intention that the LLG would unilaterally endow itself with legitimacy = by the means of its very governing text. It is like the U.S. Constitution m= aking itself the supreme law of the land. Sure, both already were, but havi= ng it down in ink is nice. But, since the LLG has less ability to enforce c= ompliance than the U.S. government, it is actually a vulnerability to point= out that this endowment is being made - before, it would be assumed, but n= ow (if the motion were to be debated by us or the public) it may be challen= ged. I think that I ventured too far into political theory.
>

I did specify "groups", in the plural; yet I addre= ssed only the LLG. I think that this is enough, for reasons which will beco= me clear, but I should be more explicit. By "groups", I meant oth= er Lojban-related institutions or organizations with formal rules of conduc= t, membership, and authority. Moreover, I intended them to be, in some form= , derived from the LLG or its Board; primarily, I was considering those whi= ch were established by, were conditionally granted their pertinent authorit= y from, and which operated at the behest and under the auspices and with th= e will of the LLG or its Board. This includes offices or organizations such= as the ones which we will eventually use in order to handle Internet and c= omputer affairs. I see them as being devolved, but ultimately gaining their= authority from the LLG. This is the case even if the LLG legally restricts= itself from authoritating within the purview of such entities unless it - = possibly forcefully - dismisses, dissolves, retires, or abolishes them (or = if they delegate such power by internal legislation, by recusement, by not = being in active and valid session, or by other means). It is sort of like t= he situation with Scottish Parliament in the UK; presently, their authority= is given to them by the UK Parliament in a number of matters, but the supr= eme authority remains the UK Parliament, even in those matters and even aga= inst the will of the Scottish Parliament, population, or body politic. A sl= ightly worse analogy would be that of the legal British Crown (political en= tity) being the source of authority of the UK Parliament. Anyway, the point= is: the LLG and its derivative and inferior institutions are legitimate an= d authoritative in this view and those were the groups that I meant.

> I want to reassure you that I will carry out the will o= f the consensus, (super)majority, or plurality, as the case requires. I wil= l be mindful to separate official capacity and duty from personal intention= s and desires.
>
> On Jun 29, 2016 09:18, "Riley Martinez-Lynch" <shunpiker@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> I appreciate Curtis volunteering to take on these responsibilities= and the way that he has responded directly to the criteria that I suggeste= d. His initiative in confronting those concerns helps to check my reservati= ons.
>>
>> There=E2=80=99s no discourse management attitudinal for directness= , is there? I=E2=80=99m think something that would work out to =E2=80=9Clet= me be frank vs beating around the bush=E2=80=9D.
>>
>> In any case, ta=E2=80=99o nai, let me be frank. There=E2=80=99s on= e exchange during the meeting which has stuck with me, and which I need to = understand better before I can take a position on Curtis=E2=80=99 candidacy= .
>>
>> Curtis, I=E2=80=99m hoping you will help me to understand what you= meant when, following your proposal to amend the BPFK charter, you wrote:<= br> >>
>>> "this would, purposefully, give certain groups advantage = over others depending on the=C2=A0circumstances. That was the primary inten= tion (although that cannot be said because doing so=C2=A0undermines the pur= pose - but here we are now! :P ).=E2=80=9D
>>
>>
>> It=E2=80=99s possible that I misapprehended what you meant, but I = construed this to say that your intention in proposing the amendment was to= redistribute influence among factions that you had in mind but were not ex= plicitly naming, and that you had tactically concealed this intention.
>>
>> If I misunderstood, I=E2=80=99d like to give you an opportunity to= explain how I should have interpreted what you wrote. To the extent that I= didn=E2=80=99t misunderstand, I=E2=80=99d like to ask you to fully disclos= e your thoughts about which groups you had in mind, and which circumstances= .
>>
>> I want to be clear: It=E2=80=99s important that a candidate for pr= esident or vice president have strong opinions about how we operate organiz= ationally. It=E2=80=99s not necessary for me to agree with a candidate on a= ll the particulars, or even many of the generals, for them to gain my suppo= rt. But I do want to know exactly where they stand. Above all, I need to be= sure that they are committed to enacting the will of the community that th= ey represent, even at the expense of their personal vision.
>>
>> This is important because the underlying value, the primacy of the= community of speakers, is, as I understand it, why lojban is our loglan.= =C2=A0
>>
>> =E2=80=94Riley no=E2=80=99u la mukti
>>
>>> On Jun 29, 2016, at 3:31 AM, Curtis Franks <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> I hesitate to assume for myself, in the absence of any competi= tion or even commentary, the office of President because I do not want to s= eem like I am reaching or trying to amass power and, equally importantly, I= recognize that I lack the familiarity and experience that may be desired f= or the executor of the role; moreover, I have not demonstrated in the final= months of the last meeting, any skill or experience in consensus-building = or successful legislation-drafting - in fact, I realize that I was a startl= ing failure in these domains. I understand that this performance was uninsp= iring, contentious, and unhelpful. I will try to improve no matter what my = role. All that I can say for my prior conduct was that I was trying to be c= onstructive and active - to do something and to avoid pitfalls in the proce= ss. I do think that I can do a good job in any office that I hold if I am g= iven guidance, assistance, patience, and perhaps some direction. I will con= duct myself more appropriately as I observe and judge, and as I am advised,= in such a role. But I also understand that I have far from earned the trus= t of my peers. I do not want to bring doubt or grievance to management of t= his organization. I do not want people to lose faith in it. It may be the c= ase that my recognizing these things - my failings and weaknesses - and my = pledge to consciously improve with respect to them may secure for myself so= me small fraction of faith from others.
>>>
>>> Still, I believe that, unless another course is necessary, a g= radual transition would be best. That way, I can test the waters and others= can test me. I am more keen on the Vice-Presidential role as a result. But= I also understand Lojbab's reluctance in continuing his present office= and that some large degree of power-sharing is likely; I imagine that (sho= uld he retain his present role) he will begin and then bring me up to speed= in efforts, history, style, and advice for conduct. Then, he will guide me= and step in occasionally, as he deems desirable or necessary, gradually ph= asing out almost entirely as the meeting proceeds; I will increase in prese= nce in inverse proportion. Of course, he may choose to do otherwise - he do= es not need my welcome here, and especially not my permission, but he has b= oth in abundance.
>>>
>>> In short, I happily, although somewhat reservedly and self-con= sciously, nominate myself for the office of Vice-President. I hope to be ad= mirably vigorous in my intention, but also wise in its conduct. If absolute= ly desired by the community or necessary by development of events, I will t= ake the office of President with more reservation.
>>>
>>> I do still welcome others to nominate alternatives who may be = more qualified and demonstratedly trustworthy. I will do my very best, but = I understand my perception and position. I offer myself, essentially, as a = willing last-resort.
>>>
>>> On Jun 25, 2016 19:53, "Curtis Franks" <curtis.w.franks@gmail.com> wro= te:
>>>>
>>>> I agree about the timing and will hold off for a few days = so that others may comment or join the process.
>>>>
>>>> On Jun 25, 2016 19:45, "Bob LeChevalier, President an= d Founder - LLG" <lojbab@lojba= n.org> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> So Riley has volunteered as both Secretary and Treasur= er, and no one else has.
>>>>>
>>>>> Curtis has said he would be interested in either Presi= dent or Vice President.
>>>>>
>>>>> I'm willing to be President for another year, but = I'm not enthusiastic because I don't think I did a very good job th= is past year, and am not sure I can do better in the coming year.=C2=A0 I g= uess the same would be true for Vice President.=C2=A0 I can also imagine Cu= rtis as VP to me as President, and my largely delegating the job to him, at= least insofar as *active* leadership.=C2=A0 But if he feels up to the Pres= idency as it is, maybe he would be the better choice for President. (My ina= ctivity doesn't suggest any obvious role for me as VP other than as a n= ame to fill the slot.)
>>>>>
>>>>> If no one else speaks up for any office=C2=A0 (maybe a= llow another day or two at most), I suggest that someone move a particular = slate, rather than holding an election where there aren't multiple cand= idates.=C2=A0 Curtis is probably the best one to make such a motion since h= e knows best which of the two top jobs he is more willing/interested in to = serve, but anyone can make the motion.
>>>>>
>>>>> lojbab
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> llg-board mailing list
>>>>> llg-board@lojb= an.org
>>>>> http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> llg-board mailing list
>>> llg-board@lojban.org
>>> = http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board
>>
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> llg-board mailing list
>> llg-board@lojban.org >> http= ://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board
>>

--001a1143ffd291a06005366deda4-- --===============3243583455244109149== 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 --===============3243583455244109149==--