From lojbab@lojban.org Mon Oct 05 16:58:17 2009 Received: with ECARTIS (v1.0.0; list llg-board); Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:58:17 -0700 (PDT) Received: from eastrmmtao102.cox.net ([68.230.240.8]) by chain.digitalkingdom.org with esmtp (Exim 4.69) (envelope-from ) id 1MuxRW-0000b6-9g for llg-board@lojban.org; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 16:58:16 -0700 Received: from eastrmimpo02.cox.net ([68.1.16.120]) by eastrmmtao102.cox.net (InterMail vM.8.00.01.00 201-2244-105-20090324) with ESMTP id <20091005235809.YNKT1164.eastrmmtao102.cox.net@eastrmimpo02.cox.net> for ; Mon, 5 Oct 2009 19:58:09 -0400 Received: from [192.168.1.100] ([70.187.235.94]) by eastrmimpo02.cox.net with bizsmtp id pBy71c00422sj6m02By7pG; Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:58:08 -0400 X-VR-Score: -100.00 X-Authority-Analysis: v=1.0 c=1 a=Q5lYyUyzZJsA:10 a=TBjFRTigc9NYXsqtKs4A:9 a=KE70i3iVAdyo-I23qggA:7 a=Z3hnwu5Q9nR_lzZMZM2ye-FnVtIA:4 X-CM-Score: 0.00 Message-ID: <4ACA8827.1080109@lojban.org> Date: Mon, 05 Oct 2009 19:58:31 -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: "Community edited version" of CLL uploaded to the wiki References: <20091004134024.GA3835@nvg.org> <4AC8C7F4.4060002@lojban.org> <20091004211223.GF14589@digitalkingdom.org> <20091005072909.GF3835@nvg.org> In-Reply-To: Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-archive-position: 580 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 Matt Arnold wrote: > I would support adjustments to the plan, but not just taking down the > files. We certainly should not quash someone who is doing the work to > accomplish forward momentum. > > There's no sense becoming James Cooke Brown 2.0, acting against our > own project for the sake of our legal rights. Sometimes one is in > one's rights to do something, but it doesn't actually serve one's own > goals. I don't think it is a question of "for the sake of legal rights". But rather "for the sake of having and promulgating one official baseline for the language". Right now that baseline is the hardcopy CLL. byfy is supposed to approve all changes to the baseline. Others have pointed out that there is nothing stopping someone from coming up with their own modification of the baseline materials, but whether we want to promulgate them is something that we should determine, and not let happen by default. lojbab