From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Jan 05 14:28:19 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:28:19 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmmtao05.cox.net ([68.230.240.34]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.60) (envelope-from ) id 1Eudag-0005IH-Eu for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 05 Jan 2006 14:28:17 -0800 Received: from [127.0.0.1] (really [24.250.99.39]) by eastrmmtao05.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.05.02 201-2131-123-102-20050715) with ESMTP id <20060105222805.YPWD14098.eastrmmtao05.cox.net@[127.0.0.1]> for ; Thu, 5 Jan 2006 17:28:05 -0500 Message-ID: <43BD9D70.5050701@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 05 Jan 2006 17:28:00 -0500 From: Robert LeChevalier User-Agent: Mozilla Thunderbird 1.0.7 (Windows/20050923) X-Accept-Language: en-us, en MIME-Version: 1.0 To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Two organizations 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> In-Reply-To: Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 71 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: lojbab@lojban.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board 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, 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. I would agree to that, a dues-paying membership for LLG could exist in addition to the current one, and we already have provision in the bylaws for this non-voting-membership. I would have no problem with clarifying the distinction between the two groups of members, and their qualifications and duties. But the only thing that members CAN do now that non-members can't do, is vote at meetings and count towards quorum. Most anything else can be decided by the Board without a bylaw change. But I think there is a justified argument to set up a larger community that is *informal* and which people can get membership in without payment, but rather by serious participation. The fact that it is repeatedly proposed in various guises, shows the need for it, at least in concept. I've always thought of it as the Lojban Users (Group), per Ju'i Lobypli. It won't exist, unless it is declared to exist. If it has a defined role, distinct from that of LLG, it will take some pressure off the concept of "membership" in LLG. lojbab