From rlpowell@digitalkingdom.org Thu Dec 13 10:55:39 2007 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:55:39 -0800 (PST) Received: from rlpowell by chain.digitalkingdom.org with local (Exim 4.68) (envelope-from ) id 1J2tDe-0004PN-Pa for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:55:39 -0800 Date: Thu, 13 Dec 2007 10:55:38 -0800 From: Robin Lee Powell To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: Official: Election of officers Message-ID: <20071213185538.GW25819@digitalkingdom.org> Mail-Followup-To: llg-board@lojban.org References: <20071212195559.GA4608@nvg.org> <47604276.5000705@lojban.org> <20071213051342.GE6275@mercury.ccil.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <20071213051342.GE6275@mercury.ccil.org> User-Agent: Mutt/1.5.17 (2007-11-01) X-archive-position: 349 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, Dec 13, 2007 at 12:13:42AM -0500, John Cowan wrote: > Matt Arnold scripsit: > > > I'm sure I probably could look up the bylaws, and up through > > 2006 I undoubtedly would have. I am just contemptuous of bylaws, > > and am sublimely indifferent to Robert's Rules of Order. > > We don't actually use ROR, but another code. They're mostly a > useful device for making sure everyone doesn't talk at once, only > one subject is discussed at a time, and there aren't too many > possible variants being considered simultaneously. Essentially > all their machinery can be, and routinely is, dispensed with. Nor > need obstruction be tolerated -- ROR specifically says that > fractious and dilatory motions, abuse of the process, is not > permitted. The trouble is that most chairs are far too ignorant > and/or wishy-washy. I'm willing to handle formalism where it needs to be handled. What I need from you, Matt (what we all need from you, in fact) is that occassionally we will come to you and say "This situation needs formalism for Reason X". We need you to be mature enough to listen, instead of resisting just because you dislike formalism. > > I regard Boards of Directors of volunteer incorporations the way > > I now regard Polyamory. I've tried both structures, and I've > > heard of a lot of examples of them working, but haven't _seen_ > > it happen yet. > > (Sidebar: What counts as _seeing_? I'm 49, and I've been in a > successful polyamorous relationship for about 15 years now. At > least we all think it's a success.) Further sidebar: I'm at 7, and I found the comment rather insulting, although I'm sure it wasn't meant that way. > > Lead, follow, or get out of the way. > > The organization seriously needs a sail. There are plenty of > anchors already. So far all would-be sails have gotten a bit torn > in the process, but that doesn't mean you will. Lots of luck, > seriously. I agree. You're the best candidate for a sail we've seen in ages. I don't know why you felt the need to be so angrily confrontational in your mail; we're on your side. I hope you can get over whatever that was and get back to being the awesome leader we need. -Robin -- Lojban Reason #17: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buffalo_buffalo Proud Supporter of the Singularity Institute - http://singinst.org/ http://www.digitalkingdom.org/~rlpowell/ *** http://www.lojban.org/