Received: from localhost ([::1]:33449 helo=stodi.digitalkingdom.org) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bRmQk-0004bt-2W; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:24:50 -0700 Received: from eastrmfepo102.cox.net ([68.230.241.214]:46176) by stodi.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.86) (envelope-from ) id 1bRmQe-0004b1-8p for llg-board@lojban.org; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 13:24:49 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo110.cox.net ([68.230.241.223]) by eastrmfepo102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.01.05.28 201-2260-151-171-20160122) with ESMTP id <20160725202438.MUQU8832.eastrmfepo102.cox.net@eastrmimpo110.cox.net> for ; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:24:38 -0400 Received: from [192.168.0.102] ([72.209.244.98]) by eastrmimpo110.cox.net with cox id P8Qd1t00J2869s8018Qd4t; Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:24:38 -0400 X-CT-Class: Clean X-CT-Score: 0.00 X-CT-RefID: str=0001.0A020203.57967586.008A, ss=1, re=0.000, recu=0.000, reip=0.000, cl=1, cld=1, fgs=0 X-CT-Spam: 0 X-Authority-Analysis: v=2.1 cv=NYBo1gz4 c=1 sm=1 tr=0 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:117 a=JFEMeGVUNR3hGa77igez4Q==:17 a=L9H7d07YOLsA:10 a=9cW_t1CCXrUA:10 a=s5jvgZ67dGcA:10 a=N659UExz7-8A:10 a=pGLkceISAAAA:8 a=XQZRlAdDWlnAbo8WQiEA:9 a=pILNOxqGKmIA:10 a=6kGIvZw6iX1k4Y-7sg4_:22 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Authentication-Results: cox.net; none To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <822daa99-6878-512e-6793-0d3a5f0fd70a@selpahi.de> <51A8CA25-94D2-432B-8D01-ECCE1AD80CF0@gmail.com> From: Bob LeChevalier Message-ID: Date: Mon, 25 Jul 2016 16:24:37 -0400 User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows NT 6.1; WOW64; rv:45.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/45.2.0 MIME-Version: 1.0 In-Reply-To: X-Spam-Score: -1.9 (-) X-Spam_score: -1.9 X-Spam_score_int: -18 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-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"; Format="flowed" Errors-To: llg-board-bounces@lojban.org On 7/5/2016 12:17 PM, Gleki Arxokuna wrote: > 2016-07-05 18:23 GMT+03:00 Riley Martinez-Lynch >: > > I agree that LLG has not been =93very useful=94 for a long time, but = in > saying that, I don=92t mean that it can=92t be useful. To the contrar= y, > the role that it should be filling is not filled by any other > entity, and probably can=92t be. > > For example, one vital function of LLG is to recognize BPFK and its > work as custodian of the language. It=92s LLG=92s nature as a > rules-bound institution, governed by its members, that it makes it > possible for the work products of BPFK to be incorporated into the > norms of the community. > > Note that one active IRC resident expressed their clear opinion that > they prefer anarchy. So not that LLG can be perceived negatively some > think it shouldn't simply exist. There has long been in the community (especially among Americans) a = significant subset that embraces "libertarian" ideology that is largely = opposed to most sorts of government/collectivist action. I don't = subscribe to that ideology. > "LLG recognizing BPFK" for me sounds like an English proverb "claw me > and I will claw you". I don't know that proverb, or how it would apply. LLG created and = empowered BPFK, as a means of getting work done, and separating = questions of language design from the annual governance meetings (which = made those decisions during the 1980s and 1990s). > And another opinion (from la su'o da): why after all BPFK or its > equivalent should be recognized by any legal entities at all? Why can't > BPFK be independent? That is merely another form of the libertarian argument - basically = saying that government and legalities don't and shouldn't matter. But = alas they do in some circumstances. > Community can decide whom to listen. The community cannot decide anything, absent some means of communicating = and deciding. > Some people prefer using only CLL (first edition) and they feel happy. I am one, but that is an individual decision, not a community decision. = And it is not the case that a community decision is merely a disjoint = collection of individual decisions. > Also I wouldn't like the community (primarily newcomers) to form an > opinion that LLG is somehow hijacking Lojban having no rights over it > (indeed how can one own a language?) One cannot, but there are other rights that do not entail ownership. But I am not sure what that would have to do with "hijacking", which has = little to do with ownership. While no one can own a language, for the most part language involves an = interaction between 2 or more people, and thus there is an interpersonal = and organizational aspect to language. If the number of people gets = large, there is also a community aspect to language. > Personally I suggest that LLG pays more attention to > 1. its goal (from the Bylaws) not limited to Lojban I need to make a specific statement here. The bylaws were written at a = time when the split between Lojban and TLI Loglan was not necessarily a = permanent one, and indeed that split wasn't desired. The Bylaws were = worded ambiguously in order to allow for a variety of possibilities. = While LLG could in theory support other/another language effort besides = Lojban, it has never so far been the case that LLG has actively = supported any others. (We have interacted informally with the TLI and = Klingon communities and with the inventions called "planb" and "guaspi", = but always with our focus on Lojban and not those other efforts). Unless we get a significantly different membership and Board, I think = LLG had better remain limited to Lojban. > 2. administrative and > 3. technical issues of Lojban like that of printing books, deciding on > important software and providing hosting for it. I will add "financial" to this. The financing of Lojban has largely = been invisible for the last decade or more since Robin provided server = hosting and support of the website for free, and we only minimally were = publishing (but someone had to deal with amazon, Paypal, and = LightningSource/Ingram) > All other issues that sound politically like "we need a leader who will > lead us into the bright future of transhumanism or whatever" should in > my opinion be abandoned. > I don't think we need loud slogans. > And I do think we only need the work being done. But any work that requires more than one person to do it requires some = sort of organization/leadership. And that is primarily where LLG has = been failing to fulfill its role. I still don't really understand the issues between guskant and you, but = I rather doubt that you two will resolve them alone, and at times it = seems like things have descended to the point of loud slogans, whether = they are needed or not. lojbab _______________________________________________ llg-board mailing list llg-board@lojban.org http://mail.lojban.org/mailman/listinfo/llg-board