From jkominek@miranda.org Thu Jan 05 10:00:26 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:00:26 -0800 (PST) Received: from miranda.org ([216.93.242.2]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with smtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EuZPS-0001Ed-8a for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 10:00:24 -0800 Received: (qmail 31726 invoked by uid 534); 5 Jan 2006 11:00:21 -0700 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:00:21 -0700 From: Jay F Kominek To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Two organizations Message-ID: <20060105180021.GG12437@miranda.org> References: <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 Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.9i X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 67 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: jkominek@miranda.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Thu, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > 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. Certainly the board should continue to behave as though the LLG will be the only Lojbanic organization for the forseeable future. If some person or persons (Matt) want to make another organization, there is no reason for us to worry about it. I'm not suggesting we ignore its existance, but rather, it can operate itself as amuses whatever members it has, without the LLG trying to decide what it should or should not be. If that organization reaches a point where the LLG can hand off some responsibilities, great. > 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. For those of us who can't remember what we had for breakfast, could you refresh our memories? > 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. Something which reinforces the fact that they're making a commitment to do more than cough up cash. Things like "worker" and "staff member" are coming to mind, but those are probably no good. We wouldn't want to make them sound like employees, either. -- Jay Kominek