From matt.mattarn@gmail.com Mon Sep 18 13:06:35 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:06:35 -0700 (PDT) Received: from wr-out-0506.google.com ([64.233.184.228]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.62) (envelope-from ) id 1GPPNv-0006og-Rs for llg-board@lojban.org; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:06:33 -0700 Received: by wr-out-0506.google.com with SMTP id 67so1453583wri for ; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:06:30 -0700 (PDT) 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=ShMDHxocqhKs98R/qoUoeohZHxxO3/hgb4z1+UtwcPVnaK0pJCWZZncK+KgR4DR1Gc11tlmD1ewXm+1m6ZA2R7coKxWWi0Ocvwj+uJSR2FeZHXA0woRx2sSrSDOm0fH5tHfW88OZH/vESp9nFk7J1Ve4uVj9IPSz+4G4JJ9LUeQ= Received: by 10.90.27.6 with SMTP id a6mr4974373aga; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Received: by 10.90.55.6 with HTTP; Mon, 18 Sep 2006 13:06:29 -0700 (PDT) Message-ID: Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 16:06:29 -0400 From: "Matt Arnold" To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Lojban blog In-Reply-To: <20060918185800.GC4610@chain.digitalkingdom.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Content-Disposition: inline References: <20060918165438.GU27480@miranda.org> <20060918185800.GC4610@chain.digitalkingdom.org> X-Spam-Score: -2.4 (--) X-archive-position: 166 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 On 9/18/06, Robin Lee Powell wrote: > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 10:54:38AM -0600, Jay F Kominek wrote: > > On Mon, Sep 18, 2006 at 12:14:14PM -0400, Matt Arnold wrote: > > > Do you agree, and is it possible? I'd like to get input on how I > > > make it look. For instance, whether to put it above, or below, > > > the existing content. What do you think? > > > > This is a technical/asthetic issue for the web master, or perhaps > > the main mailing list. > > > > Not for the board. Certainly not cross posted between the board > > and the members' lists. > > I disagree. Outreach is the board's job, and this isn't exactly a > high-volume mailing list. The question of "is it possible?" is > arguably one for the webmaster, but the webmaster is a delegation of > the duties of the Secretary, who is on the board. > > Furthermore, bringing a hard technical problem, as this is, to a > wide group of people seems like a smart thing to do. > > -Robin > Thanks, Robin. Jay, Ignore the aesthetic and technical questions if they don't interest you, but I'm asking for official LLG support for the idea of a blog on the homepage. In response to your email I have thought out a few options for you, and I am bringing up the following list to the organization in my official capacity as an LLG member and a Board member. Option #1. Take out the Outreach Clauses in Article Two, Section One, so that it will no longer be this organization's job. Which it currently is. "Purpose. The Logical Language Group, Inc. is established to ... to communicate with and to educate interested persons and organizations about these activities; to devise and develop means and instruments needed for these activities..." #1 is a perfectly valid choice. In that event I will make another organization that fills the outreach need, and in so doing supply the fresh workforce necessary to fulfill all the other purposes of the LLG. Option #2. On matters of aesthetics, presentation, and content not pertaining to official language design, designate me to speak for this organization when it comes to making your publicity and outreach decisions for you. It's a job that no one wants, Robin and several others think I'm good at it, I'm volunteering, and if designated I promise to listen to the input of everybody who cares. #2 is another perfectly valid choice. Option #3. I suppose you could do the outreach yourself, if you wish. But I'd personally rather you continue to focus your efforts on Wikipedia and the language design aspects of the mandate. Good job on the arguing against the Loj Wikipedia being deleted, by the way. Option #4. Don't complain. Unless you change the bylaws, don't complain if I try to fulfill our organization's mandate, and unless you delegate to me the ability to unilaterally mess around with the Lojban project's public image, don't complain if I ask you and involve you in your job before I just do it. #4 is also a valid choice. Option #5. Complain about all the email produced by membership in a leadership organization when it's actually being asked to excercise leadership. Surprise! I welcome everyone to weigh in on which of these you prefer (exept for #5, which is not a real option). But until then I'll continue to use #4. -epkat