From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 22 11:08:07 2005 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:08:07 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EpVnJ-0004Lq-RI for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:08:06 -0800 Date: Thu, 22 Dec 2005 11:08:05 -0800 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Election of officers concluded Message-ID: <20051222190805.GA14718@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <20051219070640.GB3514@ccil.org> <20051222182458.GE9783@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.11 From: Robin Lee Powell Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 28 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 01:47:54PM -0500, Matt Arnold wrote: > On 12/22/05, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > > On Thu, Dec 22, 2005 at 11:43:19AM -0500, Matt Arnold wrote: > > > On 12/19/05, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > > > > On Mon, 19 Dec 2005, John Cowan wrote: > > > > > > > I need a lot more information. What would be done with the > > > money? > > > > Either things the membership org wanted done with it, or things > > the LLG would have done anyways. Things like publishing books. > > > > We discussed this on IRC at one point, but you kind of > > disappeared while I was talking, so I'm not sure how much you > > saw. > > > > I didn't see any of it. It's been almost the busiest month of my > life; fortunately that's over as of this evening. As a consequence > I only was able to be on IRC that day long enough to ask the > question of what this rumored informal organization idea was all > about. I'd like to continue the discussion through e-mail. And yet you showed up in IRC to discuss it, and then left in the middle of my answering again. Please don't do that, it's rude. Here's where we were: 22.12.05 11:03 Eppcott: you only seem to have one goal, to improve the LLG for its work. That can be accomplished by saying "this is not an enthusiast's organization, it's a business organization." 22.12.05 11:04 Eppcott: if you have no reason to do something, why do it? 22.12.05 11:04 Eppcott: got to go The answer to your question is: because there's an obvious desire on the part of the community for an enthusiast's organization and in the absence of one being defined, people seem to want to join the LLG for that purpose. I thought I had said that already. Not sure how to make it any clearer. If we just says "The LLG is not an enthusiast's organization", people will ignore it, as I ignored Bob when he said that before I had had a chance to do the business work myself. -Robin -- http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/ Reason #237 To Learn Lojban: "Homonyms: Their Grate!" Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/