From arj@nvg.ntnu.no Sun Oct 04 09:54:42 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:54:43 -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 1MuUM0-0003hv-67 for llg-board@lojban.org; Sun, 04 Oct 2009 09:54:42 -0700 Received: from hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (unknown [IPv6:2001:700:300:2000:2a0:c9ff:feab:76e2]) (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 012E094791 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:54:09 +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 n94Gs5eq022240 for ; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:54:05 +0200 Received: (from arj@localhost) by hagbart.nvg.ntnu.no (8.13.8/8.13.1/Submit) id n94Gs0vq022229 for llg-board@lojban.org; Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:54:00 +0200 Date: Sun, 4 Oct 2009 18:54:00 +0200 From: Arnt Richard Johansen To: llg-board@lojban.org Subject: [llg-board] Re: "Community edited version" of CLL uploaded to the wiki Message-ID: <20091004165400.GB3835@nvg.org> References: <20091004134024.GA3835@nvg.org> <4AC8C7F4.4060002@lojban.org> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline In-Reply-To: <4AC8C7F4.4060002@lojban.org> 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-archive-position: 568 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 Sun, Oct 04, 2009 at 12:06:12PM -0400, Robert LeChevalier wrote: > Arnt Richard Johansen wrote: > >but now that the worms are out of the can, just pulling the files off > the site may not be a good move. > > I reluctantly think that they should be pulled, with a notice posted in > its place saying that any modifications to CLL *must* be approved by > byfy/the Board prior to distribution. It should state that there can be > only one official version of the language, and that is presently the > original CLL version. Only byfy (delegated by the board) has the > authority to change that. It seems that the purpose of the edition is not to make any substantive changes to the language, but rather to incorporate the approved errata from http://www.lojban.org/tiki/CLL,+aka+Reference+Grammar,+Errata. -- Arnt Richard Johansen http://arj.nvg.org/ Taboos abound in almost any aspect of Tuvan life. [...] To name an example: the introduction of the Latin alphabet in 1930 was also believed to impose a threat on the health of women expecting a child. -- Mark C. van Tongeren: Overtone Singing