From lojbab@lojban.org Wed Nov 08 10:33:29 2006 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:33:30 -0800 (PST) Received: from eastrmmtao06.cox.net ([68.230.240.33]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.63) (envelope-from ) id 1GhsEh-0000hz-Da for llg-board@lojban.org; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 10:33:27 -0800 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao06.cox.net (InterMail vM.6.01.06.03 201-2131-130-104-20060516) with ESMTP id <20061108183321.GSN4133.eastrmmtao06.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Wed, 8 Nov 2006 13:33:21 -0500 Received: from [127.0.0.1] ([72.192.234.183]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id kJYS1V0043y5FKc0000000; Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:32:28 -0500 Message-ID: <455222E8.8080409@lojban.org> Date: Wed, 08 Nov 2006 13:33:12 -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: Lojban at Philcon References: <20061103224551.GI13321@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <454BCD8A.2090306@lojban.org> <454D271D.4040903@lojban.org> <454F8195.6050507@lojban.org> <20061106184455.GZ13321@chain.digitalkingdom.org> <4551C431.6030304@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: 239 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: >>> I like to think my reasons in this case are pretty damned good, >>> though. >> >> Jay and Arnt haven't spoken, and no one seems to be chairing this >> meeting at the moment. > > Sorry. There must have been a misunderstanding here. It is my > understanding that: > a) I am chairing the meeting. I know. You just seemed to disappear. It might have been innocuous, but it seemed to me like Matt needed a decision within a day or two, and the chair was silent. > b) Having seen no objections to the proposal in a reasonable amount of > time, the spending may be considered approved. If that is your ruling, I have no problem. But if you want it to be "considered approved" without your explicit ruling that there has been a reasonable amount of time, we need to know how much time you define as being "considered reasonable". You as President have the authority to spend LLG money, and de facto Robin as Treasurer does (i.e he can write checks, though his expenditures should be authorized by others if not dictated by law). But except to the extent that you exert executive authority, there isn't any such thing in the organization. With Lojbanic matters, we can survive, more or less, without an executive. But the business aspects sometimes need clear decision making authority. I have full confidence that you can do the job, but it does need to be done. > Also, I did speak, and I voted in favour of spending money for the > junior suite. I didn't see that. I saw your comment on the 4th saying you thought that the junior suite was preferable to the mezzanine, but it seemed to be worded as a statement of discussion and not a vote. lojbab