From lojbab@lojban.org Thu Oct 23 16:49:30 2008 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:49:30 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao106.cox.net ([68.230.240.48]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1Kt9vj-000441-Hq for llg-board@lojban.org; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 16:49:29 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo01.cox.net ([68.1.16.119]) by eastrmmtao106.cox.net (InterMail vM.7.08.02.01 201-2186-121-102-20070209) with ESMTP id <20081023234907.ODWM4226.eastrmmtao106.cox.net@eastrmimpo01.cox.net> for ; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:49:07 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo01.cox.net with bizsmtp id WPp51a00622sj6m02Pp5Yr; Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:49:05 -0400 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=y4iQmW7CgTcA:10 a=qo_olom2oKIA:10 a=CmG2q412DqIZlMOj69sA:9 a=YfAs_h5ozN68e1nYgWoA:7 a=_5jQBoqwO0goCH0t1bY70OxvRG8A:4 a=Dqp-bWOt5EsA:10 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <49010D70.1080409@lojban.org> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2008 19:49:04 -0400 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: A request to spend money. References: <20081022214253.GD23512@digitalkingdom.org> <20081022223521.GB31254@mercury.ccil.org> <20081022225329.GG23512@digitalkingdom.org> <20081022232701.GH23512@digitalkingdom.org> <20081023205739.GH31898@digitalkingdom.org> In-Reply-To: <20081023205739.GH31898@digitalkingdom.org> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Spam-Score: 0.0 X-Spam-Score-Int: 0 X-Spam-Bar: / X-archive-position: 438 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 Robin Lee Powell wrote: > OK, since no-one seems to have complained much yet, I'm going to > call for objections to this form of the offer, with assurances that > I'll write it up better than that when the time comes. Since > everyone's pretty much already weighed in, the deadline is Monday, > 27 Oct 2008. If there are objections, we'll do a real vote. Overall I think the idea is worthy of the proposed expenditure. I will support the proposal with the condition that John Cowan review whatever you write up (and that you jointly determine whether a respondent has met the conditions). I'm not sure any of the rest of us are qualified on the technical points, and it seems useful to have a committee of 2 rather than just 1 reviewing the matter. Alternatively, waiting just a few days more, the proposal, possibly with writeup complete, could be voted on by the membership as new business. The fact that you are NOT waiting until then might suggest to some that you have a reason NOT to want the decision made by the members vs the board. I have no problems with either choice, but would like to know if you had considered this option. In any event, if the board approves this, I would like it to be mentioned in the meeting. lojbab