From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Mon Jan 02 23:54:59 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:54:59 -0800 (PST) Received: from zproxy.gmail.com ([64.233.162.192]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Eth0Q-0001PP-FF for llg-board@lojban.org; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:54:57 -0800 Received: by zproxy.gmail.com with SMTP id f1so2519651nzc for ; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:54:52 -0800 (PST) DomainKey-Signature: a=rsa-sha1; q=dns; c=nofws; s=beta; d=gmail.com; h=received:message-id:date:from:to:subject:in-reply-to:mime-version:content-type:content-transfer-encoding:content-disposition:references; b=OVzbC5ntcospRE1d+Hdb5vSt4OyBvXqhr1CTrImGLdxIJPyZ2CMqRsBbzdhbCfwBl/P6+8gPJSyoDYyevfxVNnFvJSwNl3XIhShhjZeswtF3X+JnAv71sQw22DViHKVrUJUzS84VfhUSOAsluSXOjPz4VCPECrP1mcfsBaVH+EQ= Received: by 10.65.119.10 with SMTP id w10mr362581qbm; Mon, 02 Jan 2006 23:54:52 -0800 (PST) Received: by 10.65.110.14 with HTTP; Mon, 2 Jan 2006 23:54:52 -0800 (PST) Message-ID: Date: Tue, 3 Jan 2006 02:54:52 -0500 From: Matt Arnold To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Two organizations In-Reply-To: <43B9C64B.5050805@lojban.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20051219070640.GB3514@ccil.org> <20051226195753.GB5289@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060102042644.GJ4087@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <20060102173819.GL29659@miranda.org> <43B9C64B.5050805@lojban.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.5 (--) X-archive-position: 59 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: matt.mattarn@gmail.com Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board > The UEA, and the Esperanto groups of the various countries (ELNA is the > one in the USA, I think), are much like LLG - they are registered or > incorporated legal groups that operate like businesses. They have to > be. Handling money incurs legal obligations on the part of those who do > that money handling, and usually also incurs tax obligations unless > you've made arrangements to be tax-free. Multi-national organizations > have an even harder time, since they have do be responsive to the laws > of all the countries in which they officially operate. This is why LLG, > while in principle an international organization, is pragmatically a > Virginia corporation. It is simply beyond our scope to set up a > multi-national legal organization, and I doubt that there are enough > Lojbanists interested in organizational matters to make such a thing viable. > > > would take over authorities > > and responsibilities previously assigned to the LLG, such as > > publishing books, organizing Logfest, and the www.lojban.org wiki. > > The new organization would have NO "responsibilities" per se, in that > "responsibility" implies some legal commitment, and thus inevitably a > legal organization. Rather, it would have spheres of activity which > would be associated with it, and not with LLG (and indeed LLG will > officially be hands-off). Those spheres would be the areas where the > community and LLG agree believe that decisions should be made by those > actually using the language. in every other organization I'm involved in, even those which are legally incorporated, "responsibility" means one friend can say to another "You promised you'd do x and you didn't, and we the community have noticed and are kind of pissed." > If it is larger and more representative, it will not necessarily be more > active, because most Lojbanists are NOT "active" and aren't inclined to > become so. If it has fifty members and half of them are absent for a year at a time, you've got twenty people participating. It will not be more active *per capita*. But there is a reason it will be more active. In the LLG and board we seem to have a signifigant fraction of the members (one third? one half?) absent for months or years at a time, there isn't quorum, and things get deadlocked. If XXX has fifty members and half of them are absent for a year at a time, you've got twenty-five people participating at any given time, who can move things along. > >>I would definitely describe people who promote Lojban on SF conventions as > >>"activists". :-) > > > > Point taken. I prefer "lojbangelist". > > At which point you will seriously drive away those people who resent > evangelism. It was a self-deprecating joke. My bad for neglecting to say zo'o. -epkat