From arj@nvg.org Thu Jan 05 09:46:43 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 05 Jan 2006 09:46:43 -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 1EuZCB-00018W-3w for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 09:46:41 -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 BCC259478E for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:46:23 +0100 (CET) Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 18:45:05 +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: <43B9C64B.5050805@lojban.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> <43B9C64B.5050805@lojban.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: 66 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, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > [...] LLG corresponds to the > UEA. The new group corresponds to the rather disorganized community of > Esperantists that identify themselves as such but are NOT voting members > of any formal organization - that group is MUCH larger than the UEA. I think Nick once made an off-hand comment that the LLG was more like the Akademio de Esperanto in Rotterdam. Since there doesn't seem to be a lot of enthusiasm about setting up a new organisation, I am coming to think that the best course of action right now is to continue to have LLG as the main (only) Lojbanic organisation. But we do need to open up the membership more. To that end, I would like to go through with a reform similar to Nick's 2003 proposal from the member's list. Although I would like the terminology to be somewhat different. Those who pay their dues should be called just members. Those who are currently members, should be called something else, I'm not sure what. This terminology change would, in contrast with Nick's original proposal, require a bylaw change, because it talks about what members can do. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Quidquid latine dictum sit, altum videtur.