From arj@nvg.org Mon Jan 02 10:04:29 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:04:29 -0800 (PST) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtps (TLS-1.0:DHE_RSA_AES_256_CBC_SHA1:32) (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EtU2g-0004yd-77 for llg-board@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 10:04:28 -0800 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id 1F67C94789 for ; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:04:05 +0100 (CET) Date: Mon, 2 Jan 2006 19:02:47 +0100 (CET) From: Arnt Richard Johansen X-X-Sender: arj@hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Two organizations In-Reply-To: <20060102173819.GL29659@miranda.org> Message-ID: References: <20051219070640.GB3514@ccil.org> <43AB97DF.8030703@lojban.org> <20051226195753.GB5289@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060102042644.GJ4087@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060102173819.GL29659@miranda.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.org X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 51 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Mon, 2 Jan 2006, Jay F Kominek wrote: > On Mon, Jan 02, 2006 at 11:22:25AM -0500, Matt Arnold wrote: >>> I was thinking about something along the lines of UAE ( >>> http://www.uea.org/info/angle/an_kio.html ). I still think something like >>> that is necessary in a long perspective, and beneficial in a shorter >>> perspective. >> >> That link is very informative. I have been asking for a few weeks >> "what is the informal organization?" To put the exact same thing in >> another way, "what would it _do_?" There came no answer, only shrugs. > > Because the whole point is the informality. This discussion, like the > first one, is absolutely bizarre. Go do something with Lojban, with > other people. You will then be an informal Lojban organization. (In so > far as "informal organization" makes any sense in the first place!) I may be feeling up the elephant's belly right now, but AIUI, the idea is to have an organisation that is free from the constraints of being chartered in a U.S. state, and having to hold meetings and maintain quorum and whatnot. Not that the scope and structure is to be loose or undefined. Back in around 2002, there was briefly some pressure to start conducting LLG meetings in Lojban. That failed, because people who do valuable work for the LLG, and which we can't afford to lose, can't speak Lojban. So it is a potential source of ridicule that the only Lojban organisation currently in existence does not use Lojban. But if we had a user org that basically did nothing, but that used Lojban in its publications, and was bigger than the LLG, thus becoming the main Lojban org, this problem would be solved, I think. > This strange need for everyone to formally define what their informal > organization will do before it can exist simply demonstrates to me that > it probably is not an appropriate idea for the sort of people who are > interested in Lojban. The fact that everyone seems to disagree and/or misunderstand each other wrt the scope and structure of the organisation, demonstrates to me that there is a need to (semi-)formally define what the organisation will do. > We can better spend our time on things that the LLG itself will do. > After all, we're the LLG board, and we're beholden to its members. > Not the future-members of another organization, even if they are a > superset of our own members. Yes, I agree. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Inuktitut iis eesseentiiaallyy Fiinniish aas spooqqeen iin Greenlaand. --Clint Jackson Baker, via Essentialist Explanations