From arj@nvg.ntnu.no Fri Sep 12 01:24:58 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:24:59 -0700 (PDT) Received: from sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no ([129.241.210.67]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Ke3xE-00049N-5P for llg-board@lojban.org; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 01:24:58 -0700 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no [129.241.210.68]) (using TLSv1 with cipher DHE-RSA-AES256-SHA (256/256 bits)) (No client certificate requested) by sabre-wulf.nvg.ntnu.no (Postfix) with ESMTP id B5A2F9478E; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:24:03 +0200 (CEST) Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (localhost.localdomain [127.0.0.1]) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.12.8) with ESMTP id m8C8O3gc007143; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:24:03 +0200 Received: (from arj@localhost) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id m8C8O2qT007142; Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:24:02 +0200 Date: Fri, 12 Sep 2008 10:24:02 +0200 From: Arnt Richard Johansen To: LakMeer Kravid Cc: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: byfy taskmaster Message-ID: <20080912082402.GI2447@nvg.org> References: <20080829193518.GD16391@nvg.org> <20080911150747.GH2447@nvg.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: User-Agent: Mutt/1.4.2.1i X-NVG-MailScanner-Information: Please contact the ISP for more information X-NVG-MailScanner: Found to be clean X-MailScanner-From: arj@nvg.ntnu.no X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 399 X-ecartis-version: Ecartis v1.0.0 Sender: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org Errors-to: llg-board-bounce@lojban.org X-original-sender: arj@nvg.org Precedence: bulk Reply-to: llg-board@lojban.org X-list: llg-board On Fri, Sep 12, 2008 at 07:01:58PM +1200, LakMeer Kravid wrote: > .yyyy. I thought I already had. There must be something I'm missing. I > sent an email to llg-board recommending we move on to CEI, did this > reach everyone, or am I missing a step? Should I modify the tiki as > well? > If theres some communication break here, please let me know. There definitely has been a break of communication here. On behalf of the BPFK, I apologize for not documenting our procedures better. Most BPFK commissioners are not on the LLG board. Your primary means of communication with the BPFK commissioners is via bpfk-announce@lojban.org, and on the discussion tabs on individual BPFK pages (which are gatewayed into the bpfk-discuss mailing list). -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Never put off till tomorrow what you can do the day after tomorrow.