From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Jan 05 11:14:19 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:14:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1EuaYz-0002tU-R4 for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 11:14:18 -0800 Date: Thu, 5 Jan 2006 11:14:17 -0800 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Two organizations Message-ID: <20060105191417.GI4710@chain.digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.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/1.5.11 From: Robin Lee Powell Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-archive-position: 69 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, Jan 05, 2006 at 06:45:05PM +0100, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > 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, Erm, what? Of the 5 board members, 3 have expressed enthusiasm (you, me, Matt), one has said (correctly) it's not the board's business (Jay), and one has complained (Bob). Where's the lack you're seeing? > But we do need to open up the membership more. No, we really really really don't. It's almost impossible to get anything done at the meetings *now* because we never have 2/3rds of the members actually present to vote on things. Even with proxies we've sometimes been under that number, I'm pretty sure. The LLG needs fewer members, not more. Or, more accurately, it needs members that can actually be trusted to show up and vote (which amounts to the same thing). -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/