From lojbab@lojban.org Tue Oct 31 11:59:09 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:59:09 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmmtao01.cox.net ([68.230.240.38]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GezlC-0000k8-Kd for llg-board@lojban.org; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 11:59:06 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao01.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061031195859.SGIH17820.eastrmmtao01.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:58:59 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id h7yQ1V00Q3y5FKc0000000 Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:58:26 -0500 Message-ID: <4547AB0B.2040100@lojban.org> Date: Tue, 31 Oct 2006 14:59:07 -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: Motion to officially recognize new art References: <45475237.5020108@lojban.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: -2.6 (--) X-archive-position: 215 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 Matt Arnold wrote: > I would like you to see what I posted to the Lojban blog. It is > essentially what I posted in this email discussion, with the addition > of pictures. I am going to create a web poll about this and post the > URL soon. > > http://community.livejournal.com/lojban/15886.html > > -Eppcott > > On 10/31/06, Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > >> On Tue, 31 Oct 2006, Robert LeChevalier wrote: >> >> > There is a potential fourth thing to be represented - the >> publication Ju'i >> > Lobypli that Matt is (hopefully) reviving. It needs a masthead, and >> could in >> > theory uses symbols separate from the others. That decision, I >> think, should >> > be up to Matt or whoever is editor of said publication. As such, I >> have no >> > objection to Matt using his logotype in the upcoming LogFest >> unofficially. >> >> I don't understand how your last sentence follows from the rest of the >> paragraph. Can you explicate, please? Matt is capable of wearing multiple hats, and making it clear which hat he is wearing when he uses his logograph. As long as he understands that it is not (yet) official though he can use it to promote his unofficial projects, I have confidence that he won't misrepresent things. >> I agree in principle that Matt can do whatever he wants with the >> logotype, >> unofficially, but it is my opinion that Matt being both an LLG officer >> and >> the organiser of Logfest renders him incapable of doing anything wrt >> Logfest that will not be perceived as official. Matt is a board member, as am I. But we are not officers, and we have no authority to speak for the organization. LogFest itself isn't really an official function of LLG any more. When it was the locus of the annual meeting, then it was. But part of the understanding last year that lets Matt call Lojban activities at his Michigan convention a second "LogFest" is the explicit understanding that there can be any number of unofficial LogFests, which LLG will support. (If LogFest-at-Philcon becomes really successful, we may want to adopt it as official, but we have not in fact done so). You are correct that people may perceive things differently than they are, that things may be official when they aren't. I am not so worried about that. A lot of things get done unofficially in this organization by people just getting out there and doing it (jbovlaste for example remains an unofficial endeavor, as do Matt's podcasts). I don't think we should choke off our most productive people merely because they got elected to the Board, limiting them only to things that are official. (I was perceived as being obstructive of unofficial activities when I was President, so I bend over backwards NOT to do so now; you as President may need to take a harder line than I do if you think the organization is at risk %^) If someone incorrectly gets the idea that Matt's actions wrt the logograph are in some way official, it will (in theory) be on record in the minutes of the Board meeting that they are NOT. (We can and should make official his web-poll on the logograph, when he gets it set up). Otherwise, your concerns are valid, and we have to trust that our officers ARE careful what they say when speaking for the organization because their words potentially have legal import. And Board members and non-Board members need to know that activities are unofficial unless officially endorsed, and not claim more than they have the authority to claim. That puts the most pressure on you and on Robin, because you are the public faces of LLG (Jay also, when so delegated, but the LLG VP has not been an especially active role). lojbab